AUTHOR- MEHAK VERMA, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ROHTAK
To the Point
In the last fifty years, the idea of environmental protection has moved from a proud aim to a legal right for human. Today, everyone accepts that having clean air, safe water, and healthy surroundings is essential to living well and with dignity. International agreements, national constitutions, and court rulings worldwide now back this view. In India, judges have read environmental safeguards into Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life, giving people a legal way to demand a healthy environment. Likewise, regional and global human-rights bodies recognize that pollution and habitat destruction can trample basic freedoms, threatening health, shelter, and even cultural heritage. This article follows how environmental concerns have merged with human-rights law, reviews landmark judgments in India and abroad, and examines the ongoing gaps in enforcement and governance that stand in the way of fully securing these rights.
Use of Legal Jargon
Inalienable Right: A right that cannot be taken away or transferred, such as the right to life or dignity.
Intergenerational Equity: The principle that current generations must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
Margin of Appreciation: The leeway given to states in balancing environmental concerns with economic or social policies under human rights law.
Proportionality Test: A legal test to assess whether restrictions on rights (e.g., for development) are balanced and justified.
Sustainable Development Principle: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising future generations.
Precautionary Principle: When a movement poses a threat to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
Public Trust Doctrine: The state holds certain natural resources in trust for the public and must protect them.
Locus Standi Expansion: Broadened rules of standing allowing citizens and NGOs to approach courts for environmental protection even if they are not directly affected.
Abstract
This article explores how environmental rights have become an important part of human rights, both in India and around the world. It begins by looking at how global declarations have linked environmental protection with human well-being. It then explains how Indian courts have used the Constitution especially Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. The article also discusses important international cases and agreements that support this connection between human rights and the environment. Finally, it highlights the main challenges in enforcing these rights, such as limited access to justice, weak institutions, and lack of global cooperation, and suggests ways to improve accountability and public participation.
The Proof
The legal recognition of environmental rights began with the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, the first international document to clearly connect a clean environment with human dignity and well-being. Principle 1 stated that everyone has the right to live in an environment that allows a life of dignity and good health.
This idea was further supported by later international agreements:
The 1982 World Charter for Nature stressed the duty to protect nature for both present and future generations.
The 1992 Rio Declaration promoted sustainable development, public involvement, and environmental justice.
Many countries now include environmental rights directly in their constitutions. For example, South Africa’s Constitution (Section 24) gives everyone the right to a healthy environment and requires the government to protect it.
In India, the Constitution doesn’t directly talk about the environment, but the Supreme Court has said that the right to life (Article 21) includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. After the Bhopal gas tragedy, the government passed the Environment (Protection) Act in 1986, which gave it powerful tools to protect nature and take action against pollution.Also:
Article 48A asks the government to protect the environment and forests.
Article 51A(g) says it is every citizen’s duty to protect and improve the natural environment.
Case Laws
1. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi (1981)
By holding that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, this case has broadened the meaning of Article 21. This ruling laid the groundwork for subsequent environmental extensions of Article 21, despite the fact that it was not specifically about the environment.
2. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) – Dehradun Timber Case
The court used Articles 48A and 51A(g) to close down limestone quarries in the Doon Valley and protect the environment. This was one of the first times environmental protection was enforced under the right to life.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) The case of Taj Trapezium
The Supreme Court invoked the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle to protect the Taj Mahal from industrial emissions, setting up one of the strongest precedents for proactive judicial environmental intervention.
4. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Here, the Court recognized both the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle as part of Indian environmental law. It held the government responsible for ensuring that industries do not pollute water bodies and soil, and ordered compensation for affected communities.
5. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
This case introduced the concept of absolute liability for hazardous industries, particularly those involved in chemical manufacturing. It reaffirmed the role of the Public Trust Doctrine in safeguarding the environment for future generations.
Conclusion
Environmental rights have become essential to human dignity and justice, not just matters of policy. By understanding Article 21, we can say that to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, the Indian judiciary has been essential in making environmental protection a legal right. This has been possible through the idea of a “living Constitution,” which allows courts to adapt constitutional values to modern needs.
However, several challenges continue to limit the full enforcement of environmental rights. Many vulnerable communities still face barriers in accessing the courts due to narrow rules of locus standi. Regulatory bodies often lack the resources and manpower needed to effectively monitor and enforce environmental laws. Environmental problems that cross borders, such as river pollution, air contamination, and climate-related migration, demand stronger international cooperation. Moving forward, it is crucial to strengthen environmental institutions, empower local communities through Gram Sabhas and grassroots governance, and build global partnerships to address shared environmental issues like climate change and biodiversity loss.
FAQS
Q1. How did Article 21 come to include environmental rights?
The Supreme Court progressively interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, stating that life with dignity requires access to clean air, water, and a balanced ecosystem. This was reinforced by Articles 48A and 51A(g), which guided the Court’s approach to environmental protection.
Q2. What is the Public Trust Doctrine?
This doctrine says the government must look after natural resources for everyone’s benefit. It can’t sell them off or let them be damaged, or it breaks its duty. This concept has been applied by Indian courts to safeguard rivers, lakes, and forests.
Q3. Can communities that are outside India use Indian cases as persuasive consultants?
Yes. Indian environmental judgments are often cited by courts and tribunals across the globe, particularly in jurisdictions where environmental jurisprudence is developing. Indian cases are especially influential in the Global South and among common law countries.
Q4. What remains the biggest hurdle to enforcing environmental rights?
Lack of administrative capacity, judicial delays, and weak compliance mechanisms hinder the effective enforcement of environmental rights. Additionally, political and economic pressures often override environmental considerations, especially in fast-growing economies.
