The constitution of India is not an inert but a living document which evolves and grows with

time. The specific provisions on environment protection in the constitution are also result of this
evolving nature and growth potential of the fundamental law of the land. The preamble to our
constitution ensures socialist pattern of the society and dignity of the individual. Decent standard
of living and pollution free environment is inherent in this. The Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 defines environment as environment includes water, air and land and the interrelationship
which exists among and between air, water and land and human beings, other living creatures,
plants, micro-organism and property.

The chapter on fundamental duties of the Indian Constitution clearly imposes duty on every
citizen to protect environment. Article 51-A (g), says that It shall be duty of every citizen of
India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life
and to have compassion for living creatures.

The Directive principles under the Indian constitution directed towards ideals of building
welfare state. Healthy environment is also one of the elements of welfare state. Article 47
provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living
of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. The
improvement of public health also includes the protection and improvement of environment
without which public health cannot be assured. Article 48 deals with organization of agriculture
and animal husbandry. It directs the State to take steps to organize agriculture and animal
husbandry on modern and scientific lines. In particular, it should take steps for preserving and
improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle. Article 48 -A of the constitution says that the state shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

The Constitution of India under part III guarantees fundamental rights which are essential
for the development of every individual and to which a person is inherently entitled by virtue of
being human alone. Right to environment is also a right without which development of
individual and realisation of his or her full potential shall not be possible. Articles 21, 14 and 19
of this part have been used for environmental protection.

According to Article 21 of the constitution, no person shall be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 21 has received
liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597). Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life.
Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it. Right to healthy
environment is important attribute of right to live with human dignity. The right to live in a
healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as
Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to
environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation
(illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free
environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Excessive noise creates pollution in the society. The constitution of India under Article 19
(1) (a) read with Article 21 of the constitution guarantees right to decent environment and right to
live peacefully. In PA Jacob vs. The Superintendent of Police Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1, the
Kerala High Court held that freedom of speech under article 19 (1)(a) does not include freedom
to use loud speakers or sound amplifiers. Thus, noise pollution caused by the loud speakers can
be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian constitution confers fundamental right on every citizen to
practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. This is subject to
reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot carry on business activity, if it is health hazards to the
society or general public. Thus safeguards for environment protection are inherent in this. The
Supreme Court, while deciding the matter relating to carrying on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B.
Bharucha Vs Excise commissioner, Ajmer (1954, SC 220) observed that, if there is clash
between environmental protection and right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have
to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any occupations.

Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India resulted in
a wave of environmental litigation. The leading environmental cases decided by the Supreme
Court includes case of closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region (Dehradun

Quarrying case, AIR 1985 SC 652), the installation of safeguard at a chlorine plant in Delhi
(M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037) etc. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs.
Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, the Court observed that the Precautionary Principle and the
Polluter Pays Principle are essential features of Sustainable Development.

At local and village level also, Panchayats have been empowered under the constitution
to take measures such as soil conservation, water management, forestry and protection of the
environment and promotion of ecological aspect.

Environment protection is part of our cultural values and traditions. In Atharvaveda, it

has been said that Mans paradise is on earth; this living world is the beloved place of all; It has
the blessings of natures bounties; live in a lovely spirit. Earth is our paradise and it is our duty
to protect our paradise. The constitution of India embodies the framework of protection and
preservation of nature without which life cannot be enjoyed. The knowledge of constitutional
provisions regarding environment protection is need of the day to bring greater public
participation, environmental awareness, environmental education and sensitize the people to
preserve ecology and environment.(pib.nic.in)-public information buruea

Environment and life are interrelated. The existence of life on earth depends on the harmonious
relationship between ecosystem and environment. Especially homo-sapiens have very close interaction
with nature. Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development and that they are
entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
In the long evolution of the human race on this planet, a stage has been reached when, through the rapid

acceleration of science and technology, we have acquired the power to transform our
environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Humanitys capacity to transform
its surroundings, if used wisely and with respect to the ways of nature, can bring to all
communities the opportunity to enhance the quality of life. Wrongly or heedlessly applied, or
applied in iniquitous ways, the same power can do incalculable harm to human beings and their
environment. We see around us growing evidence of human-caused harm in many regions of the
earth the dangerous levels of pollution in water, air, earth and living beings; destruction and
depletion of irreplaceable life forms and natural resources; major and undesirable disturbances in
the earths climate and protective layers; gross deficiencies, harmful to physical, mental and
social health, in the living and working environments of humans, especially in cities and
industrial complexes.

It is important to recognize our dependence on the earths natural resources. Natural resources
such as air, water, and land are fundamental to all life forms: they are, much more than money
and economic infrastructure, the base of our survival. To large numbers of humanity, especially
communities that have been termed.
ecosystem people (people depending on the natural environments of their own locality to meet most of
their material needs) [1], natural resources are the base of survival and livelihoods. Their material and
economic sustenance largely depends on these. In India alone, around 70% of the population directly
depends on land-based occupations, forests, wetlands and marine habitats, for basic subsistence
requirements with regard to water, food, fuel, housing, fodder and medicine as also for ecological
livelihoods & cultural sustenance. Given this close interdependence of humans and their environment, it is
not surprising that the culture of societies is so greatly influenced by their environment. They seek
inspiration, knowledge, spirituality and aesthetics within their natural surroundings. But it is not only
ecosystem people who are dependent on the natural environment. It is all humans, even the rich urban
resident in Paris or Washington who may be under the delusion that s/he is buffered by the props of
modern technology. In the growing cities of the industrializing world, millions of residents of all classes are
now prone to lung and skin diseases, water-borne illnesses, and congenital abnormalities from toxics in
their food and water, some of which may have originated hundreds of kilometers away. [2]
Life and Environment: Life, livelihoods, culture and society, are fundamental aspects of human existence
hence their maintenance and enhancement is a fundamental human right. Destruction of environment
and thereby of the natural resources, is therefore, a violation or leads to the violation of human rights
directly by undermining the above aspects of human existence, or indirectly by leading to other violations
of human rights, for example through social disruption, conflicts and even war. Conversely, human rights
violations of other kinds can lead to environmental destruction, for instance, displacement by social
strife/war can cause environmental damage in areas of relocation; or breakdown in sustainable common
property management. The manifestations of such violations present themselves through a loss of access
to clean air and water; loss of access to productive land; loss of energy sources and biomass; loss of food
and health security; social and economic marginalization; and physical displacement. Several hundred
million people have been increasingly forced to live far below the minimum levels required for a decent
human existence, deprived of adequate water, food, clothing, shelter and education, health and
sanitation. Development, which was supposed to alleviate such problems, has often increased them,
especially by allowing the powerful sections of society to appropriate the natural resources of poor and
resource-dependent people. [3]

Environment and Indian Constitution: The backbone of these is relevant provisions in Indias
Constitution. The Constitution of India, 1950, did not include any specific provision relating to
environment protection or nature conservation. Presumably, the acute environmental problems
being faced now in the country were not visualized by the framers of the Constitution. However,
the past five decades have witnessed two major developments in this connection. The first
development took place when the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, was
adopted in the mid-seventies. Specific provisions relating to certain aspects of the environment,
more especially for the protection of the forests and wildlife in the country, were incorporated in
Part IV- Directive Principles of the State Policy and List III The Concurrent List of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. As a result, the Constitution has now the following

provisions specifically relating to environment protection and nature conservation: Part IV:
Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 48A): Protection and improvement and safeguarding
of forests and wild life: The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Part IV-A: Fundamental Duties (Article 51-A):
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (g) to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Seventh
Schedule (Article 246) List III - Concurrent List Item no. 17 Prevention of cruelty to animals,
Item no. 17A Forests, Item no. 17B Protection of wild animals and birds.[5]
Article 21 and Right to Pollution free environment: The second major development has been the
jurisprudence arising from certain remarkable judicial pronouncements in recent years, more
specially relating to Article 21 of the Constitution dealing with the right to life. If one is asked
which is the most important of all the articles in the Indian Constitution, one can only say Article 21, which says no persons shall be deprived of his life and liberty which is the guiding
light of India. All the other articles are subservient to this. In other words all articles have been
formulated for keeping up this theme song of the Indian Constitution 'life and liberty' no
person - not just a citizen no person in India shall be deprived of life and liberty. It is not
included as a mere platitude because over the years this article, which was a throbbing article,
which was the most dynamic of all articles gathered flesh and with the help of Article 21 - the
life and liberty of individuals are protected. [6] Article 21 is the celebrity provision of the Indian
Constitution and occupies a unique place as a fundamental right for the people of India. It
protects the life and personal liberty. It envisages and aims that no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except to a procedure established by law. Here, right to life includes right
to health, right to food, right to pollution free environment, etc. In simple words, Article 21
provides an inbuilt guarantee to a person for right to live with human dignity.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedures established by law. Article 21 is the heart of all other
fundamental rights. Article 21 has very expansive scope and has immense content into of with
lesser words. Law is never still, it is ever evolving and ever changing accordingly to meet the
challenges of time. Therefore constitution provisions, especially fundamental rights and in
particular Article 21 has been broadly construed by the judiciary. The court attempted to expand
the reach and ambit of Article 21 rather than accentuate their meaning and content by judicial
construction. Thus the judiciary broadened the concept of life, extended the scope of personal
liberty so as to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to making the personal
liberties of man. Basic principles were compiled to understand procedure established by law. The
judiciary has resolved most of the environmental cases where they considered right to good
environment as fundamental for life and upheld as fundamental right. Thus we can consider
article 21 as mandate for life saving environment. This article focuses on some of the landmark
cases that have a bearing on the persons right to life and right to pollution free environment.

The constitution makers themselves construct the fundamental rights in its broad sense especially
to right to life. The Supreme Court of India has given essence to the right so that every person
can enjoy life to its fullest extent. The Indian Supreme Court came out of the shackles of
mechanical and rule bound justice and provided impetus to the expanded horizons of the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21. Two methods are used by
Supreme Court to strengthen Article 21 and to interpret unenumerated rights under Article 21, it
required laws affecting personal liberty to pass the tests of Article 14 and 19 of the constitution,
there by ensuring that the procedure depriving a person of his or her personal liberty be
reasonable, fair and just. The court recognized several matriculated rights that were implied by
Article 21. It is by this method the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life and personal
liberty to include the right to wholesome environment and all other rights. Thus Courts have
undertaken to explicate the development of ideology of environment as being part of the right to
life by various judicial pronouncements.
The judicial craftsmanship attempted to expand the reach and ambit of Article 21 rather than
accentuate their meaning and content by judicial construction. Thus the judiciary broadened the
concept of life. Thus extended the scope of personal liberty so as to include within itself all the
varieties of rights which go to make the personal liberties of man. Right to life extended its scope
to include right to wholesome environment and right to sustainable development. Indian
democracy wedded to rule of law aims not only to protect fundamental rights of its citizens but
also to establish an egalitarian order. Law being an instrument of social engineering obliges the
judiciary to carry out the process established by it.
Environmental deterioration could eventually endanger life of present and future generations.
Therefore, the right to life has been used in a diversified manner in India. It includes, inter alia,
the right to survive as a species, quality of life, the right to live with dignity, right to good
environment and the right to livelihood. In India, these rights have been implicitly recognized as
constitutional rights. The right to healthy environment has been incorporated, directly or
indirectly, into the judgments of the court. Thus it is clear that article 21 has a multidimensional
interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act on the part of any state, depriving the
life or personal liberty would be against Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
Judicial Interpretation to Right to Life and Environment: The right to healthy environment has
been incorporated, directly or indirectly, into the judgments of the court. Link between
environmental quality and the right to life was first addressed by a constitutional bench of the
Supreme Court in the Charan Lal Sahu Case [7] In 1991, the Supreme Court interpreted the right
to life guaranteed by article 21 of the Constitution to include the right to a wholesome
environment.
In Subash Kumar, [8] the Court observed that right to life guaranteed by article 21 includes the
right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. Through this case,

the court recognized the right to a wholesome environment as part of the fundamental right to
life. This case also indicated that the municipalities and a large number of other concerned
governmental agencies could no longer rest content with unimplemented measures for the
abatement and prevention of pollution. They may be compelled to take positive measures to
improve the environment. This was reaffirmed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.[9]The case
concerned the deterioration of the world environment and the duty of the state government,
under article 21, to ensure a better quality of environment. the Supreme Court has held that life,
public health and ecology have priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. The Supreme
Court ordered the Central government to show the steps they have taken to achieve this goal
through national policy and to restore the quality of environment. In another case,[10]the
Supreme Court dealt with the problem of air pollution caused by motor vehicle operating in
Delhi.
It was a public interest petition and the court made several directions towards the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. Decisions such as this indicate a new trend of the Supreme Court to
fashion novel remedies to reach a given result, although these new remedies seem to encroach on
the domain of the executive.[11]
In Shanti Star Builders vs. Narayan Totame.[12], the Supreme Court held that right to life is
guaranteed in a civilized society would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to
clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in.
In Subhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar- (1991) 1 SCC 598, the Supreme Court held that right to
life is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution and it include the right to enjoyment
of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws a citizen has recourse to Art.32 of the Constitution for
removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to life.
In M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India 1987 SCR (I) 819 (the Oleum Gas Leak case), the Supreme
Court established a new concept of managerial liability absolute and non-delegable for
disasters arising from the storage of or use of hazardous materials from their factories. The
enterprise must ensure that no harm results to anyone irrespective of the fact that it was negligent
or not.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, the Supreme Court
held that industries are vital for the countrys development, but having regard to pollution caused
by them, principle of Sustainable Development has to be adopted as the balancing concept.
Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle has been accepted as a part of the law of
the country.[13]
In Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, 1996 3 SCC 212 (the Bichhri

pollution case), following the decision in the Oleum Gas leak case and based on the polluter pays
principle, the polluting industries were directed to compensate for the harm caused by them to
the villagers in the affected areas, specially to the soil and to the underground water. Enunciating
the doctrine of Public Trust in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388, the SC held that
resources such as air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a
whole that by leasing ecologically fragile land to the Motel management, the State Government
had committed a serious breach of public trust.
The changing trajectory of environmental rights in India, from a historical perspective Active
judicial intervention by NGOs, community groups, and others, have also set a series of important
precedences that go beyond what the bare laws provide. There are many initiatives in Public
Interest Litigation (PIL). Some of these include the cases against the construction of the Tehri
Dam (Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1992 SUP (1) SCC 44)
and Narmada Dams (Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 3345); against
deforestation (T. N Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, 2000 SC 1636, a case that has
since then spawned dozens orders pertaining to forests in India); against mining in the Aravallis
(Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India 1992 SC 514, 516); against mining in the Dehra
Dun hills (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985
SC 652); against mining in adivasi lands of Andhra Pradesh (Samatha vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 1997, a judgment with important consequences for acquisition or use of adivasi lands
elsewhere too); on implementation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (WWF vs. Union of
India, WP No 337/95); on implementation of Coastal Regulation Zone measures (Indian Council
for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, 1996(3) 579); on protection of the coastal area
against destructive practices (Prof.Sergio Carvalho vs. The State of Goa, 1989 (1) GLT 276); on
the right of citizens to inspect official records (this was before the Right to Information Act came
into force) (Goa Foundation vs. North Goa Planning and Development Authority. 1995(1) GLT
181); against forest logging and other environmental aspects of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The judgments in other cases have set important precedents and directions for the further
development of policy, law and practice.
For instance, the Godavarman and the WWF vs Union of India cases have led to the orders that
no forest, National Park or Sanctuary can be dereserved without the approval of the Supreme
Court, no non-forest activity is permitted in any National Park or Sanctuary even if prior
approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 had been obtained, New authorities,
committees and agencies have been set up such as the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
and the Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Agency.
Some judgments not directly related to environmental cases, also have significant implications
for the struggle to establish environment as a human right. Mention should especially be made of
a number of cases in which the Constitutional Right to Life (Article 21) has been interpreted
widely to include a series of basic rights that include environment and livelihoods.

In Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746), Justice Bhagwati observed:
We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes
along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter
over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely
moving about and mixing and co-mingling with fellow human beings.
In Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame (AIR 1990 SC 630), the Supreme Court
said: Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three food, clothing, and
shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep
the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable
accommodation to live in.
In Olga Tellis case (AIR 1986 SC 180) the Supreme Court observed An important facet of that
right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the
means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to
life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. That which alone makes it possible to live,
leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to
life. environmental crisis is causing enormous disruption of lives and livelihoods, threatening
the collapse of its entire life-support system.
The poor and dis privileged classes of humans and the other non-human species unfortunately
have to bear the main brunt of these environmental problems. Ironically, the crisis is rooted deep
in social, economic and political structures, more specifically in relations of inequity of three
kinds Intra-generational inequity, Intra-generational inequity, and Inter-species inequity.
Inequities in the relations between people and countries have also allowed the imposition of
unsustainable and destructive models of development. The process of development has been
characterised by the massive expansion of energy and resource-intensive industrial and urban
activity, and major projects like large dams, commercial forestry, and mining and chemicalintensive agriculture. The resource demand for the economic progress of a minority of people has
lead to the narrowing of the natural resource base for the survival of the economically poor and
powerless. This has happened either by direct transfer of resources into cities and industrial
complexes, or by the destruction of life-support systems for rural communities everywhere.
In Re Noise Pollution (V) [14] the cries of a rape victim for help went unheeded in the blaring
noise of loudspeaker in the neighborhood. The victim committed suicide. Public interest
litigation was filed. The court said that article 21 of the constitution guarantees life and personal
liberty to all persons it guarantees a right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are
included, all the aspects of life which go to make a persons life meaning full, complete and
worth living. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why the life should not be

enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Any one who wishes to live in peace, comfort and
quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can
claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts
and cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Any noise which has the effect of materially
interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man is
nuisance. How and when a nuisance created by noise becomes actionable has to be answered by
reference to the degree and the surrounding circumstances, the place and the time.
In Research Foundation for science Technology and Natural resources Policy v. Union of
India [15] Dumping of hazardous waste, whether directions shall be issued for destruction of
consignments with a view to protect environment and, if not, in what other manner consignments
may be dealt with it was held, precautionary principles are fully applicable to facts and
circumstances of the case and only appropriate course to protect environments is to direct
destruction of consignments by incineration as recommended by Monitoring Committee.
In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of AP [16] Leave granted. The present matter raises two
kinds of questions. Firstly, at a jurisprudential level, it falls on this Court to lay down the law
regarding the use of public lands or natural resources. In this case the Court has reiterated the
importance of the Doctrine of Public Trust in maintaining sustainable development which has
been declared as inalienable human right by UN General Assembly.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India [17]whether mining activity carried out in Villages Khori
Jamalpur and Sirohi in District Faridabad in Haryana are in violation of the orders passed by this
Court on 6th May, 2002 was in question. It was held, it does not appear that area in question falls
under any category of prohibition for carrying out mining activity. But another aspect that
remains to be examined is about impact of mining in the villages in question on environment,
Merely on basis of photographs or plying of large number of trucks per day, a direction can not
be made for stopping mining activity Monitoring Committee constituted in terms of directions in
M.C. Mehta's case is directed to inspect the mining activity being carried on in 75.05 hectares in
village Khori Jamalpur and in 50.568 hectares in village Sirohi in Faridabad district and report
the impact. In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and others [18]
in consonance with the principle of 'Sustainable Development', a serious endeavour has been
made in the impugned judgment to strike a golden balance between the industrial development
and ecological preservation.
Conclusion:
Such wide interpretations of Article 21 by the Supreme Court have over the years become the
bedrock of environmental jurisprudence, and have served the cause of protection of Indias
environment (and to a lesser extent, of livelihoods based on the natural environment). Adding to
this is a large number of laws relating to environment, enacted over the last few decades
However, a number of groups have also pointed out that the Constitution is deficient in that it

does not explicitly provide for the citizens right to a clean and safe environment. In a recent
submission to the committee set up to review the Constitution, these groups have proposed a
number of amendments to the Constitution, for ensuring environment protection and nature
conservation. These include: Recognition and incorporation of Environmental Rights as separate
and independent Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India. These follow from the abovementioned interpretation to the term Right to Life, as given by the Supreme Court.
This could be further specified to include right to clean drinking water, and to a clean and
pollution-free environment. Replacement, within the Directive Principles of State Policy, of the
term forest by the term life supporting natural ecosystems, The reason for this suggestion is
that the Courts and other authorities, including the forest departments, have been interpreting the
term forest to mean land with trees. As a result, land without trees is not considered as a forest
and there is a lack of interest in protecting other important ecosystems such as grasslands,
deserts, marshes, mangrove, etc.
With the better understanding of these diverse ecosystems and their importance to humankind
there is a need to preserve them. Incorporation, within the Fundamental Duties, the responsibility
of panchayats and municipalities to give due regard to ecological aspects and to protect the
environment, including life supporting natural ecosystems such as forests, rivers and lakes, and
wild life, in the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice. This would
also necessitate incorporation, into the Eleventh Schedule relating to the Panchayats, an item for
protection of the environment and the promotion of ecological aspects.
Thus a chronological analysis of environmental mission of the courts has been undertaken in
order to explicate the development of the ideology of environment as being part of the right to
life in the Indian context is justified from the above discussion. Therefore it is evident that article
21 is mandate for life saving environment.
Article 21 is the heart of the fundamental rights and has received expanded meaning from time to
time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978
SC 597). Art. 21 guarantees a fundamental right to life a life of dignity to be lived in a proper
environment, free of danger of disease and infection. The right to live in a healthy environment
as part of Art. 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known
as Dehradun Quarrying Case).
It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological
balance. The R.L. & E. Kendra and others in a letter to the Supreme Court complained about the
illegal / unauthorized mining in the Missouri, Dehradun belt. As a result, the ecology of the
surrounding area was adversely affected and it led to the environmental disorder.

The Supreme Court treated the letter as writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and
directed to stop the excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The respondents contended / argued that the write petition was registered in 1983 and the
Environment (Protection) Act was passed in 1986 and hence the criminal proceedings cannot be
initiated with retrospective effect. The court rejected the contention of the respondents and held
that the provisions of procedural law shall apply to ordinary criminal cases and not to the
environmental cases. The court directed the Central and State Governments to take necessary
steps to prevent illegal mining and to re-afforesation in the area of mining.
In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak
Case) The Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a part of
fundamental right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Further the A.P. High Court in T.
Damodar Rao vs. S.O., Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, (AIR 1987 A.P. 171) laid down that
right to live in healthy environment was specially declared to be part of Art. 21 to the
Constitution.
Life is a succession of moments. To live each one is to succeed. Justice Corita Kent
Environment is an aggregate of all external conditions and influences affecting the life and
development of an organism. Once it is disturbed, no better living conditions for human beings
can be created. Hence to make the enjoyment of life more meaningful, the preservation and
protection of natural environment must be given priority and the human activities causing
ecological imbalance must be stopped forthwith. Justice P. A. Choudhary of Andhra Pradesh
High Court, while expressing his views on the need of environment in the enjoyment of life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Consti tution in T. Damodar v. State of
Andhra Pradesh has rightly observed: The enjoyment of life and its attainment and
fulfilment guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and
preservation of natural gifts without which life cannot be enjoyed.
Noise may be safely defined as unwanted sound. What is pleasant to some ears may be
extremely unpleasant to other, depending on a number of psychological factors. Noise
pollution can be divided into two categories viz. natural and man-made. Natural causes of
noise pollution are air, noise, volcanoes, seas, rivers, exchanging voices of living organs
including man and animals and likewise. Some of the chief causes of man-made noise
pollution are machines and modern equipment of various types, automobiles, trains,
aeroplanes, use of explosive, bursting of firecracker and other things leading to noise
pollution. Noise affects human life in many ways. It affects sleep, hearing, communication
and mental health and physical health and finally the peace of living. It may even lead to
madness in persons.
Pollution is derived from the Latin word polutus which means defiled or to make dirty. It is
a noun derived from transitive verb pollute, which according to Random House Dictionary
of English Language means: to foul, to dirty the air etc. An important component of air

pollution which is assuming importance is the Pollution from Noise. Noise is an inescapable
by product of industrial environment, which is increasing very fast with the advancement in
industrialization and urbanization. The Industries located in the residential areas such as the
printing press, agro based industries, automobiles repairing, grinding mills etc., are the
main sources of community noise affecting public continuously living in the vicinity.
Noise not only causes irritation or annoyance but it does also constrict the arteries, and
increases the flow of adrenaline and forces the heart to work faster, thereby accelerating the
rate of cardiac ailment, the reason being that continuous noise causes an increase in the
cholesterol level resulting in permanent constriction of blood vessels, making one prone to
heart attacks and strokes. Health experts are of the opinion that excessive noise can also
lead to neurosis and nervous breakdown.
Noise is measured in decibel (dB). Experts believe that continuous noise level in excess of
90 decibels can cause loss of hearing and irreversible changes in nervous system. World
Health Organization (WHO) has fixed 45 decibels as the safe noise level for a city, though
the four metropolitan cities of Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai, usually registered
an average more than 90 decibels, while Mumbai is rated as the third noisiest city in the
world. New Delhi is said to be closely following Mumbai in noise pollution and if control
measures are not taken to reduce sound level, result would be alarmingly disastrous.
In the days before the development of environmental jurisprudence, the Common Law
Remedy against nuisance was the only means available to curtail excessive noise, and this
was wholly based on the discretion of the judge. Whether a particular noise constitutes a
nuisance, after all, is often a question of degree. The development of standards for public
conduct, as well as case law in this area, has led to significant changes in our understanding
of noise pollution and the measures adopted to check it.
Various laws address the issues of noise pollution in part, as being specific to certain
activity.Viz
Railways Act, 1890 and noise: A large amount of noise pollution is advanced by the noise
emitted from railway engines and carriages. There is no check to curb this noise pollution
under the Railways Act, 1890 (Act No. IX OF 1890) statutory authority for the use of
locomotives to railways administration.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Vehicles are one of the chief noise producing irritants in
modern times. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 through sections 20, 21 (j), 41, 68, 68 I, 70,
91 and 111 empowers a State Government to frame rules for the un keep of motor vehicles
and control of noise produced by them in this jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Motor
Vehicles Rules made by States do not contain any effective control measures to control
noise pollution except a meagre control of horns and silencers of the motor vehicles.
The Aircrafts Act, 1934: Under Section 5 of the Aircrafts Act 1934 Central Government
has power to make rules for manufacture, possession, use, operation, sale, import or export

any aircraft and this may cover the regulation of air transport services and the prohibition of
the use of aircraft . The Act has many other provisions but there is no provision for
the control of noise. In this regard it is suggested that aerodromes be constructed far away
from the residential areas of a city in order to protect residence from the noise created by
frequent take off and landing.
The Factories Act, 1948: It is very surprising that no industrial law provides any
protection to the workers from noise pollution. Section 11 (I) of the Act stipulates that every
factory shall be kept clean, without having any nuisance and in particular the use of word
'nuisance' in section II may include 'noise, but it is very high time that the employees
should be protected from noise pollution by making some statutory provisions in the
industrial laws. It is also very amusing that under section 35 of the Act, protection is given
for the eyes of an employee working but as such no protection is provided to the ears.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India- Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.
Article 21 starts with a negative word but the word No has been used in relation to the
worddeprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent
encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure
established by law. Article 21 of the Constitution deals with prevention of encroachment
upon personal liberty or deprivation of life of a person.
Personal liberty means a bundle of rights, essential for the existence of human life.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court pointed out that the expression
personal liberty does not mean only liberty of the persons but also liberty or rights
attached to the person (Jus-personam). A division bench of the Delhi High Court observed
in AV Chardel v. Delhi University that the expression life and personal liberty includes a
variety of rights, which though not enumerated in Part-III of the Constitution, can be
included in various aspects of liberty provided they are necessary for the full development of
human personality. Further in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, Justices PN
Bhagwati, Fazal Ali, Murtaza, while stressing the quality of life and its enjoyment within
the purview of Article 21have rightly said: The right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot
be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical
survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along
with it.
Thus the expression personal liberty is not confined to the protection of limb and faculty
but includes everything essential for the enjoyment of life with all human dignity.
A very important question how far the violation of liberties essential for life caused by the
environmental pollution lies within the scope of Article 21 has been discussed by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Damodar Rao v. S. O. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. It observed: The enjoyment

of life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
embraces the protection and preservation of natures gifts without which life cannot be
enjoyed. There can be no reason why practice of violent extinguishment of life alone should
be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The slow poisoning by the
polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoliation should also be
regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Similar question has recently been discussed by Rajasthan High Court in LK Koolwal v
State, while issuing the writ of mandamus against the municipal corporation of Jaipur, the
Court observed: Maintenance of health, preservation of sanitation and environment falls
within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizen and it amounts
to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens because health hazards are created.
Rights to sleep, food, recreation, peaceful living and conversation, etc. are such basic
liberties without which the enjoyment of life with all human dignity is not possible. If these
were disturbed by noise, their violation would certainly lie within Article 21 of the
Constitution especially in those cases where the license for the use of such sources of noise
has been granted directly by the state administration or indirectly through its corporate
bodies. In these circumstances the state should not be allowed to run away from its
responsibility if it fails to control the manner of use of such sources of noise which ultimately
results into the violation of personal freedoms besides causing a problem of environmental
pollution through noise.
After Narasu Appa Mali case in the Bombay High Court, nothing much was said or done
about regulating noise from religious establishment due to sensitive religious sentiments
prevailing in the Country. The Court have approached the subject of regulating noise in
religious institutions with caution and reverence and most of the decision have been based
on the bare facts of the case without the Judiciary touching any aspect about the religious
practices.
In Biranagana the Court upheld that power of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sec. 34A of the Police Act 1861 to direct a religious organization against the use of microphones,
which might hinder the rights of citizens to lead a life of peace and tranquillity.
A right belongs to human personality and not to a mechanical device. Relying on various
scientific studies which show the negative impact of noise on human beings, the court held
that the compulsory exposure of unwilling persons to high noise level would amount to a
clear infringement of their constitutional guarantee of right to life under Art. 21. The right to
a safe environment including safe air quality and noise level was implicit in the right to life
guaranteed according to Art. 21 of our Constitution.
Two decisions in this regard delivered by High Courts have been brought to our notice
wherein the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution has been upheld as the
one guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions are - Free Legal Aid Cell

Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, AIR
(2001) Delhi 455 (D.B.) and P.A. Jacob v.Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR
(1993) Kerala. Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading
freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to
expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a
fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of
loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or
decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a
right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into
aural aggression.
The Noise Regulation Rules fails to check noise in cinema theatres and other in-house public
events or even for that matter disco shows and musical concerts. Moreover the rules are
silent on noise from vehicles, which is regulated by the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which
though regulates the use of multi toned horns is hardly implemented and enforced. Horns of
the police siren and ambulance are still used in ordinary transport vehicles and buses are
popular with their threatening air horns. This not only creates panic among the fellow riders,
but might led to lot of health hazard from the already increased problem of high number of
vehicles and stress on urban roads. The issue of mufflers or silencers in vehicles is hardly
been seen by people as contributing to noise pollution. Euro-I buses by Ashok Leyland and
those used by the KSTRC have sound higher than ordinary vehicles, without any muffler in
the engine or exhaust pipe.
The Judicial response has been tremendous and appreciable, but the reality of ground
remains unchanged. Only the peoples movement might bring about this and it is time that
people take this challenge. The issue of environment must be integrated as a
multidisciplinary study and a comprehensive legislation must be evolved to deal with noise
pollution. Effect of noise on health is a matter which has not yet received full attention of
our legislatures. Pollution being wrongful contamination of environment which causes
material injury to the right of an individual, noise can well be regarded as a pollutant
because it contaminates environment, causes nuisance and affects the health of a person
and would, therefore, offend Article 21, if it exceeds a reasonable limit.

Right To Clean Environment

Introduction:
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship between the right to clean
environment and the right to life as guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution.
The person will be able to lead a good and happy life if he/she is healthy and is not

suffering from any health hazards and he is not denied any of his other Fundamental
rights. Further, the person will only remain healthy if he is living in the healthy
environment and his surroundings are clean. We need fresh air to breathe, fresh water to
drink, shelter to live, etc. These all we derive from the nature. So, in order to lead a
dignified life one needs to protect his or her environment
So, in order to reflect all the ideas, my paper firstly talk about the concept of Right to Life
under Article 21 of the constitution and how this concept has been broadened by the time.
Then, I will be discussing the basic background of the environment. Further, I will talk
about the Right to Clean Environment in relation to the Article 21 of the Constitution
with the help of cases. In order to maintain the clean environment, it is possible that the
right to development may be sacrificed. So, such types of issues are important to address
in order to get the clear understanding.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India deals with the protection of life and personal
liberty enshrined under the fundamental rights. This article states thatNo person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.
This article is considered to be the most important article of all. Although all articles are
equally important but since it deals with our life which is the foremost thing for
individual and also all other rights of the individual revolve around this article, that is
why, it is very important. Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative
word but the word No has been used in relation to the word deprived. The right to life is
difficult to define as it is not just taking away one's life rather it has a much wider
application.
Earlier the scope of Article 21 was a bit narrow as it was held in the A.K. Gopalan vs.
State of Madras that the personal liberty was confined to freedom of detention and
therefore, deprivation does not restrict upon the right to move freely which came under
article 19 (1) (d). But then the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India came which
resolved the issue of reasonableness of law with respect to article 14 and 19 and held that
the procedure must be right, fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
Then further it was argued that the life' in Article 21 does not mean merely animal
existence' but living with human dignity'. In the case of Francis Coralie vs. Union
territory of Delhi, it was held that the right to life includes the right to live with human

dignity which further incorporates basic necessities like adequate nutrition, clothing and
shelter and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself, freely moving and
mixing and commingle with fellow human beings. Also, the minimum requirements like
protection of the health and strength of the workers and of the children against abuse,
educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief, etc must
exist for a person to live with dignity. Then from there onwards, Courts went on
discussing cases about the right to life and thus, widened the concept of Article 21. Now
it includes right to food, water, shelter, clean environment, education, medical care,
privacy, etc. So, the Article 21 is actually like a mini constitution and it was mentioned in
the case of Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that the Article 21 is the heart of
the Fundamental Rights.
So, the main object of this article is to prevent one's personal liberty and deprivation of
one's life against the acts of the State and the procedure of law has to be strictly followed.
But in my paper, since I am concerned with the right to clean environment within the
ambit of Article 21of the Constitution, so my entire focus now will be on the relationship
of environment with right to life. But again before actually dealing with relationship, I
would like to throw light on the basic background of environment.

Background Of Environment:
The term environment' cannot be defined precisely as it is linked with many subjects like
ecology, biology, geography physiology, psychology etc. But, in the layman terms,
environment can be defined as the surroundings like natural resources, atmosphere, water
bodies, etc in which an individual or an organism lives. According to Einstein, the
environment is everything that isn't me. The resources form an important part of an
individual's life. Not only individuals but also animals are dependent on the environment
to fulfil their needs. Man is constantly interacting with the environment in order to fulfil
his needs. These needs include the basic needs of oxygen, food and shelter in addition to
the social needs like entertainment, medicines, etc.
In the earlier periods (Vedic period), the environment had been seen altogether
differently. There were ethical rules behind environment. According to S.C. Shastri,
The main motto of social life since Vedic period was to live in harmony with Nature'.
People used to worship plants, trees, Mother Earth, sky, water, air and animals so as to be
kind to everything. The Hindu religion enshrined a respect for Nature, environmental

harmony and conversation. The philosophy behind it was that these all are creations of
God, so destruction of nature means destruction of mankind.

In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was
mentioned that, air and water are the most indispensable gifts of Nature for preservation
of life. In ancient times, trees were worshipped as gods and forests were necessary for
mankind as they provided shelter. The world is considered to be the beloved place as it
has the blessings of nature's bounties.
The crux is that in the ancient times, environment was considered to be an inseparable
part of one's life as a healthy environment is absolutely necessary for the well-being of all
organisms. All our needs, big and small are being met by the environment only. However,
now the position is changed. With the time, man's needs has also increased, he has
become greedy. Man has felt the urge to transform his surroundings to meet his
increasing material needs and desires. He started exploiting the resources of the earth and
has been transformed from preserver to destroyer. The problem of pollution is one which
concerns most as it has gained threatening position. So, the need has been felt to look into
this matter seriously and for that purpose our judiciary has tried to do a lot.

Environment And The Life:

In order to proceed further it was necessary to present the picture of Article 21 and
environment in general. Environment and life are interrelated and the existence of life
on earth depends on the harmonious relationship between ecosystem and environment.
Every individual, from the moment of his birth, acquires certain rights. One such right is
the right to live in a clean environment.
While framing the Constitution of India, there was no mention of specific provision
relating to the protection of environment or conservation of nature. The problems were
prevalent in the earlier times also but they were very acute as the living of the people was
simple and there were not much industries, transport facilities etc. but now with the
advancement in technology and sciences, the problems have become grave. In India,
around 70% of the population directly depends on the land-based occupations, forests,
wetlands and marine habitats, for basic subsistence requirements with regards to water,
food, fuel, housing, fodder and medicines as also for ecological livelihoods and cultural
sustenance.

The first milestone reflecting an international consensus on the nature and scope of the
environment challenge confronting world community was the Stockholm Conference.
The declaration does not provide for the definition of environment. The main gist of the
declaration is the man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate
conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well
being and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generation. The conference takes into account the fact that the
environment may challenge the very existence of mankind as it has an immense impact
on the life of human kind and sustainable modification or harm.
The principle of sustainable development' came to be recognised in this declaration
which says that there must be a balance between development and ecology. Economic
development without environmental considerations can cause serious environmental
damage affecting the quality of life of the population, both present and future. Therefore,
there is an urgent need to maintain a balance between the demands of development and
the levels of environmental protection in order to ensure sustainable development. Since
pollution is the major cause of environmental degradation and of imbalance, so, pollution
control will be of greater significance for sustainable development.
Some of the basic principles of sustainable development include:
Inter-Generation Equity which talks about the right of every generation as the
most important principle of sustainable Development'.
The Precautionary Principle: this principle has been considers as the most
important principle of sustainable development. It meanso Environmental measures by the state government and the local authority
must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation.
o Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures
to prevent environmental degradation.
o The onus of proof' is on the actor or the developer to proof that his action
is environmentally

 Polluter pays principle: it is quite obvious that the object of the above principle
was to make the polluter liable not only for the compensation to the victims but
also for the cost of restoring of environmental degradation. Once the actor is
proved to be guilty, he is liable to compensate for his act irrelevant of the fact that
whether he is involved in development process or not.
The two principles, that is, the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle
came to be recognised in the case of Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum vs. Union of India.
In this case, water pollution has been caused by the tanneries. The Supreme Court
recognized the common law right of the people to a clean and healthy environment and
awarded compensation to the victims of pollution on the basis of the precautionary
principle' and the polluter pays principle' and also held that these both principles are a
part of the environment.
The Constitution of India is the main source of incorporating right to clean environment.
Though the other important work of legislation is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
which provides a framework of coordination of activities between the Central
government and the State government to prevent and control environmental pollution and
degradation. Since the need for the protection of environment has been felt, so in this
regard the two major developments have been take place in our Constitution.
First development took place when the Constitution (42nd Amendment) act, 1976, was
adopted. Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 48 A) provides for
protection and improvement and safeguarding of forests and wild life: The state shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country. Part IV-A: Fundamental duties (article 51-A): It shall be the duty of
every citizen of India - (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Seventh
schedule (Article 24) List III - Concurrent List Item no. 17 Prevention of cruelty to
animals, Item no. 17 A Forests, Item no. 17 B Protection of wild animals and birds.
The second major development related to the article 21 of the Constitution of India
dealing with the right to life'. The concept of the right to life has been broadened through
the judicial pronouncements. While resolving cases relating to environment, the judiciary
considered the right to clean or good environment as fundamental to life and upheld as
fundamental right.

In my paper, I am discussing the right to clean environment with respect to the provisions
of Article 21 of the Constitution. The evolution of the right to health under Article 21 is
invariably linked with the right to a clean environment, no less because without the latter
the former was impossible. Earlier there was a time when people thought of the
environment, they thought of its beauty, they used to maintain greenery, and most of the
time they used to spend in the fresh air, in a sense, there was an interaction between the
environment and the men. But with the growth of civilised society, man has become
more and more materialistic and in his endeavour to conquer the earth and establish his
supremacy, unfortunately, he lost sight of the need to protect and conserve the natural
resources. In the whole process, some of the people do not understand the adverse
effects of their harmful activities and as a result of those few, innocent people have to
suffer. They are being deprived of their right to life. Central to all the issues is pollution',
which involves the introduction of harmful substances into the air, land, and water.
Although this problem of pollution is not a new one but the only difference is that it was
not that acute problem as it is now and therefore, it is much recognised now. Pollution has
a direct impact on one's health, thereby, degrading one's life. The Scholar Shubhankar
Dam in his article talks about the risks posed by the households, the workplace, outdoors
and transportation to the health:
The air which people breathe is of poor quality because of pollution all around in the
environment, thereby, causing hazards like acute respiratory diseases. The air pollution
contains different harmful chemical variants like carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, sulphur
and nitrogen dioxide etc. when people are exposed to such air, then it can cause lung
cancer, respiratory infections, etc. because of these harmful chemicals. Noise pollution is
associated with miscarriages, physical deformities, deafness, hypertension, etc.

So, it is quite clear that the environment in which we live greatly affects our health. The
diseases from which people suffer are sometimes impossible to treat, thereby, leading to
death of an individual. So, unhealthy environment actually interferes with person's living
life in dignity and deprives him from his life. Therefore, the boundaries of the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 were expanded to
include environmental protection.
Then the Supreme Court strengthened this Article in two ways: first which I have
already mentioned that is to pass the test of reasonability with respect to articles 14 and
19. Secondly, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life and personal liberty to

include the right to a wholesome environment. The first attempt of the right to a
wholesome environment i.e. the issues relating to environment and ecological balance
was recognised in the case of Rural Litigation and Environment Kendra, Dehradun vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh. In this case, the representatives of the Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun wrote to the Supreme Court alleging that illegal lime
stone mining in the Mussorie-Dehradun region was causing damage to the fragile ecosystems in the area. The Court treated this letter as a public interest petition under Article
32 of the Constitution. And also several committees have been appointed for the full
inspection of illegal mining sites. All the committees came at the conclusion that the lime
stone quarries whose adverse effects are very less, only those should be allowed to
operate but that too after further inspection and all. Therefore, the Court ordered the
closure of a number of limestone quarries. Although the Court did not mention any
violation of fundamental right explicitly but ad impliedly admitted the adverse effects to
the life of people and involved a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The concept of right to wholesome environment was also recognised in the case of
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar. In this case, the company in Jamshedpur carries on
mining operation against which the suit filed. The allegations were that the slurry gets
settled in the land affecting fertility of land, polluting the drinking water, thereby risking
the health of people living in surrounding areas. The Court held that the right to life
includes the right to enjoy unpolluted air and water. If anything endangers or impairs the
quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has a right to recourse to Article 32 of the
Constitution and also it said that recourse should be by the person genuinely interested in
the protection of society on behalf of the community.
Similarly, in the case of Virender Gaur vs. State of Haryana, there has been a great
discussion about the environment within its ambit of hygienic atmosphere and
ecological balance. The observation by the Court was that:
Article 21 protects the right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its
attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit,
the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of
air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions
would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution,
etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic
environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live
with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental
protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence.

Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole

comprising the man-made and the natural environment.
So, in this regard no doubt the State has the foremost responsibility to take care of
individuals by protecting and improving the environment. But at the same time, every
citizen also has to contribute his help to the government in maintaining the hygienic
environment.
Most of the environmental cases are related to pollution of hazardous gases, wastes
disposal, etc. the world industrial disaster took place in the year 1984 which is referred to
as Bhopal Gas Disaster case'. The Bhopal plant of Union carbide India Ltd (UCIL), an
Indian company which was a subsidiary of the Union carbide Corporation, USA (UCC)
was set up. On the midnight of 2-3 December in 1984 there was a massive leak of methyl
isocynate from this plant which killed more than 3000 persons and serious personal
injuries. The whole surrounding was covered with the black smoke of hazardous
chemical gas. But the court could not reach any conclusion that by the time another
disaster happened in Delhi which was not as that severe as the Bhopal tragedy. This other
incident was referred as the Oleum Gas Leakage case. In this case, there was a leak of
oleum gas from a factory in Delhi of Shriram Foods and fertilizer Induatries which
enveloped the parts of Delhi in yellow smoke. Although the chemical gas was not that
toxic and harmful as that was in Bhopal gas case, but there were some adverse effects to
the people living in that surrounding. Through this case only rule of absolute liability'
established which says that the enterprise will be liable no matter even if there is an act of
God like earthquake, floods etc or an act of terrorism or enemy action. The Court
suggested that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in
the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegate duty
to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or
inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken and therefore, such
corporations would be subjected to the limitations of right to life under Article 21 of the
constitution. Then this case was referred to solve the Bhopal gas leak case. The effects
of this tragedy were so adverse, people developed many diseases. This incident happened
long time back but the after effects are still known. The mothers who were pregnant at
that time gave birth to disables children and children suffering from severe diseases. If a
person is not able to live his life properly, his health is not perfectly fine then, his/her life
cannot be said to be dignified life. Such type of corporations for their profits does not
take care of the after effects of their activities and the result is in front of all of us.

All the above cases which I have mentioned in some sense talk about the industrial
pollution which is not just limited to that. Another landmark case which also supported
the view that the right to a healthy environment is part to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution is the Ganga Pollution case'. In this case, a writ was filed mentioning that
the industries mostly tanneries located on the banks of the river and populated areas of
Kanpur and Calcutta were discharging highly toxic trade effluents into the river Ganga.
As a result of which the water in the river Ganga could no longer be used by the people
either for drinking or any other purposes. The Court held that the polluting tanneries
have to be closed down even though it would bring unemployment, loss of revenue
because the preservation of life, health and ecology are the most important than anything
else. It's not just about the life of the people who get affected, also the animals who
drink this water. Although they cannot go to the Court that does not mean their life is
nothing. So, the water-pollution problems (especially discharging noxious and poisonous
matter into rivers) should be dealt with strictness.
Mohit Singhvi in his article mentioned the observation by the Supreme Court, Water is a
gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse,
oppression and the primary use to which water is put being drinking, it would be mocking
nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty."
Now the other aspect is that of smoking. People smoke after knowing the ill effects of
smoking and also corporations support them in the sense by providing them with
cigarettes. Tobacco smoking definitely contributes to the air pollution as tobacco smoking
contains harmful chemicals like nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide and other smoke particles.
When people smoke, these harmful substances get mixes in the air which we breathe,
therefore is responsible for various fatal diseases including cancer. In the case of Murli S.
Deora vs. Union of India, it was pointed out by the Court that:
Since article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that none should be deprived of their life,
then why should a non-smoker become the victim of the whole process? It was contended
that smoking is injurious to health and may affect the health of smokers but there is no
reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. So, till the
statutory provision is made and implemented by the legislative enactment, it was held
that it would be in the interest of the citizens to prohibit smoking in public places and the
person not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to passive smoking on account of
the acts of the smokers.
There are a lot of after effects of this dangerous activity. There are psychological effects
of smoking. Pregnant women who smoke, they don't realize that they are actually the

accusers of their kids. Children of such mothers are likely to born with low birth weight,
small brain, short term memory span, are likely to get addicted to smoking, etc. Studies
have shown that the children of parents who smoke compared with children of non
smoking parents have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, an increase in
respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lungs
mature. People say that they get pleasure and they cannot quit smoking but the point is if
they do not care about their lives then, why are they behind the lives of innocent people.
Why do corporations just think about their profits while endangering the lives of other
persons? The study done in 2004 by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) indicates that
minimal exposure to smoke can increase the risk of heart attacks even for non-smokers.
Since every citizen has a right to dignified life according to the Article 21 of the
Constitution, so the battle between public health and corporate wealth should be decided
in favour of health.
Now, with the help of various articles and cases, it is very clear that environment is one of
the most important which directly affect our health, thereby can lead to fatal diseases
also. In turn all of these deprive a person from his right to dignified life. While the
highest human right accorded to a person is the right to life, that right could become
meaningless if the environment in which the person is living is so degraded that, in effect,
the right to life is threatened. But there are some questions remain unanswered which
are difficult to answer. This aspect I am discussing under the next heading.

Right To Development Vs. Right To Environment

And Other Aspects:
For a person to live a dignified life, a clean environment is the mandatory. But then, in
order to maintain healthy environment, we have to lose out on other aspect, that is, Right
to Development. India is a developing country and in order to compete with the world as
a whole, development of our country is really essential. Development is necessary to
ensure the fulfilment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Industry is
important for the development of a country and for meeting the growing demands of the
people. At the same time, it has a negative impact on the environment as it extracts
materials from natural resources and injects both products and pollution into the human
environment.As I have already discussed a lot of cases and industries are the main cause
for an unhealthy environment, thereby, reason for violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution. So, for that such industries which produce noxious substances and endanger
the surroundings are needed to be closed which is the best way to stop the pollution at its

roots. But again that means we are preventing our country from development. The
population is growing at a faster paste and therefore, there is an urgent need to cut trees in
order to provide people with shelter and trees are also required for industrial purposes to
fulfil their demands. This means we have no other option left rather to destroy the
environment. So, a man's indiscriminate use of land, water and air ha considerable
impaired their quality so that they are no longer fit even for his own needs and purposes.
Although population can be controlled if people are made aware, if they will get
education but then also till what extent it is possible. Still population will continue to
increase; they will continue to increase their demands in terms of shelter, luxuries, etc.
According to the important Gandhian philosophy, Nature has provided everything for
our need but not for greed. If they be denied to cut trees in order to get shelter, then
again that means they are being denied their right to live, that is, their right to life and
personal liberty are violated.
If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be an irreparable damage to the
environment and if it is stopped, then, there may be irreparable damage to economic
interest. Then the other remedy could be that the industries can be shifted. But does that
solve the problem? To some extent it does solve the problem but what about the rights of
those who are employed in such industries. They have to sacrifice their life for their
families. It is not possible to ensure this right to all as there are some who are left, that is,
the people who work for such industries. The poor people have to bear the main brunt of
these environmental problems.

Conclusion:
Earlier the article 21 of the Constitution had a bit narrow scope but with the time, the
concept of Article 21 has been broadened. The Judiciary has played a vital role in
interpreting the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The scope of Article 21 of the
Constitution has been considerably expanded by the Indian Supreme Court, which has
interpreted the right of life to mean the right to live a civilized life and it also includes the
right to clean environment. But the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the
citizen's right to a clean and safe environment.
Earlier in the ancient times, the hazards of the environment were not that recognized but
now with the advanced technology and increasing population the adverse effects are
clearly recognised. Industries contribute to the environmental pollution which proves to
be very harmful for the health of the citizens, thereby, degrade g their right to life. Then

smoking is also the main contributor to the pollution in the environment. Although many
orders have been passed against smoking but nothing fruitful is coming out. If the orders
were to hold any meaning then, no person in India should have now been smoking in
public places. Environmental conservation is the principle concern of the present times. It
is the, most urgent necessity, because a pollution free environment is a foremost
requirement for the health and safety of mankind.
Further, environment and development are considered to be the two sides of the same
coin. Any one of these cannot be sacrificed for the other. Rather, both are equally
important for the betterment of our future. But nonetheless, without concerning for the
loss of private profit, the preference has to be given to the public health and to the clean
environment. The ultimate responsibility lies on the Courts to deal with these cases
efficiently and with great caution.
Such type of environmental issues can be handled properly if people are educated and are
aware of their activities. Also, the government has to take strict measures with proper
care against the hazardous industries. Each individual shall have the opportunity to access
to the information concerning the environment. States shall facilitate and encourage
public awareness and participation by making information widely available.
A healthy environment is an absolute necessity for the well-being of all organisms. But
then again is it possible to make the environment completely pollution free environment.
So, the question which remains unanswered is the is the right to healthy environment
guaranteed or is it illusory?

References:
Mahendra P. Singh, V.N. Shukla's Constitution of India, 11th Edition, Eastern
Book Company.
S.C. Shastri, Environmental Law, 3rd Edition, Eastern Book Company.
Indrajit Dube, Environmental Jurisprudence: Polluter's Liability, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths.
Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India,
2nd Edition, Oxford India Paperbacks.

 Vidhan Maheshwari, Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The Expanding

Horizons.
Ministry of Environment, Government of India, Citizen's Guide to Environmental
Rights, Duties and Responsibilities.
Dr. G. Indira Priya Darsini & Prof. K. Uma Devi, A Mandate to Pollution Free
Environment.
Shubhhankar Dam, Green Laws For Better Health: The Past That Was And The
Future That May Be - Reflections From The Indian Experience, 2004, 16 Geo.
Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 593.
Soura Subha Ghosh, Sustainable Development and Indian Judiciary.
Mohit Singhvi, Water Management - Law and Policy in India.
Ronald J. Rychlak, Cards and Dice in Smoky Rooms: Tobacco Bans and Modern
Casinos, 2009, 57 Drake L. Rev. 467.
Sumudu Atapattu, The Right to a Healthy Life or the Right to Die Polluted?: The
Emergence of a Human Right to a Healthy Environment Under International
Law, 16 Tut. Envtl. L.J. 65 2002-2003.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC
2187.
Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
Virender Gaur vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577.
Murli S. Deora vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40.