Author: Rakhi Jha, IPEM Law Academy College
To the Point
The right to clean environment is not clearly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, through a number of landmark judgements, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, to include the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
These principles have now become part of the Indian judicial landscape, especially in environmental jurisprudence. The judiciary, primarily through public interest litigations (PILs), has transformed environmental protection from a policy goal to an enforceable right.
This judicial extension is based on the understanding that for life to be meaningful, it must be lived with dignity, health and in harmony with nature.
Degradation of the environment through pollution, deforestation or exploitation of natural resources directly affects the quality of life and therefore violates Article 21.
Courts have relied on principles of international environmental law such as: the precautionary principle (better safety than regret),the polluter pays principle (accountability for harm), and the public trust principle (natural resources are held in trust for the people by the state)
However, this right is currently based on judicial interpretation rather than clear constitutional text, leading to uncertainty in enforcement and reliance on the courts for redress. Despite several statutory frameworks, such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, their implementation has often been inconsistent or powerless without judicial impetus.
Use of Legal Jargon
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): A fundamental right under the Indian Constitution which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted it to include not only physical survival but also the right to live with dignity, which includes the right to a clean, safe and healthy environment.
Polluter Pays Principle: A principle of environmental law which mandates that the party causing pollution is liable to compensate for the damage caused to the natural environment. Recognised by the Supreme Court in several cases such as Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, this principle forms the basis of environmental compensation and liability.
Sustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised this concept to ensure that economic progress does not come at the cost of environmental degradation.
Judicial Activism When courts actively interpret laws or the Constitution to correct legal loopholes, especially when the legislature or executive fails to act. The full recognition of environmental rights under Article 21 is a result of judicial activism. The judiciary played a key role in developing environmental jurisprudence through public interest litigation and innovative interpretations.
The Proof
The legal recognition of the right to clean environment in India is based on judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions, primarily Article 21.
Although the “Right to Clean Environment” is not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court and High Courts have firmly established its place through proactive jurisprudence.
Judicial Enforcement: Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The courts have empowered any public interest individual or non-governmental organisation to file PILs in environmental matters. This open jurisdiction has democratised access to environmental justice.
Examples: Closure of tanneries situated on the banks of Ganga (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) Regulation of vehicle emissions and fuel standards (CNG case) Forest land conservation and mining regulation (Godavarman case).
Statutory framework supporting judicial interpretation. Although Article 21 forms the constitutional basis, several environmental statutes reinforce the judicial position.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – A comprehensive statute that empowers the Central Government to take all measures for environmental protection.Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 The judiciary has used these laws along with constitutional provisions to justify orders to ban polluting industries, direct clean-up, regulate waste, and protect forests and rivers.
Interpretation of Article 21 – A Judicial Innovation. Article 21 “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Initially, it was interpreted narrowly. However, in landmark judgements such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded the meaning of “life” to include dignified life, health and well-being. This expansion laid the foundation for viewing the environment as an integral part of living a meaningful life.
Judgmental reasoning: A polluted environment causes health hazards, loss of livelihoods, and human suffering, all of which violate the essence of dignified living. Therefore, a clean and safe environment is essential for the right to life.
Abstract
The right to a clean and healthy environment, though not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, has evolved as an enforceable fundamental right through judicial interpretation of Article 21 – the right to life and personal liberty.
Over the last few decades, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a transformative role in incorporating environmental rights into the fundamental rights framework.
This article critically analyses the judicial development of environmental rights under Article 21, and emphasises the How courts have invoked principles of international environmental law – including the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle and the public trust principle to strengthen environmental protection. Landmark cases such as Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, the M.C. Mehta case and the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum have laid the foundation of environmental jurisprudence, yet there is still a gap in explicit constitutional or legislative recognition. This article evaluates this legal gap and highlights the limitations of judicial enforcement in the absence of codified rights.
Case Laws
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) (1988 AIR 1115)- Polluting industries along the Ganga river were discharging untreated wastewater, causing harm to public health and the river ecosystem. The court directed the closure of polluting tanneries and the use of mandatory pollution control equipment. Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle. This case laid the foundation for environmental public interest litigation and asserted that the environment is protected under Article 21.
Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281.Chemical industries in Rajasthan were releasing hazardous waste into the environment without proper treatment. Judgement: The Court established strict liability and compensation for environmental damage under the polluter pays principle. The decision clarified the legal accountability of industries and strengthened the enforceability of environmental rights under Article 21.
Conclusion
The evolution of the right to a clean and healthy environment in India is a judicial success story, yet it remains a constitutional anomaly. Although courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have interpreted Article 21 to include environmental rights, this protection is not explicitly recognized in the Constitution.
Recognising the interdependence between human life and environmental quality, incorporating international principles such as the polluter pays, the precautionary principle and the public trust principle, Expanding the reach of public interest litigation (PILs) to allow citizens to act as environmental protectors.
The right to a clean environment has judicial recognition but is not a constitutional guarantee. Despite progressive jurisprudence, the absence of a codified fundamental environmental right has led to uneven implementation.
India’s environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 is progressive, inspiring and people-centric, but future-ready environmental governance requires clear constitutional underpinnings and institutional reforms to protect not only present but also future generations.
FAQS
Q1: Is the right to a clean environment a fundamental right in India?
Yes. While not explicitly mentioned, it is read into Article 21 by the judiciary as part of the right to life.
Q2: What is the role of PILs in environmental protection?
PILs have been instrumental in triggering judicial intervention and recognition of environmental rights in India.
Q3: Can individuals approach courts directly for environmental violations?
Yes, under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts), individuals can file writ petitions for enforcement of fundamental rights including environmental protection.
Q4: What principles govern Indian environmental law?
Key principles include the Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development, and Public Trust Doctrine.