Image source: https://bit.ly/2QELPoa

This article is written by Pranav Sethi, from SVKM NMIMS School of law, Navi Mumbai. This article deals with the link between environmental protection and Indian Constitutional Law.

Introduction 

The word “environment” comes from the French word “environ,” which means “to enclose.” Land, water, plants, fauna, living things, forests, plus everybody well above the planet are all included in its scope. The term “environment” can be used to describe all of the elements that surround man, which is divided into two basic categories, Physical environment, and Natural environment. The lithosphere, land, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, or water and air, make up the physical environment. Humans, flora and animals, and other living species make up the natural environment. Plant and animal life are essential for man’s survival on the planet. All of this is reflected in the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, which asserts: Environment comprises water, air, and land, as well as the inter-relationships that occur among and between these elements, as well as human beings, other living things, plants, microorganisms, and property.

Our Constitution is not static; it has changed and evolved through time. In the Indian context, environmental protection has not only been elevated to the status of a fundamental law of the land, but it has also been woven into a human rights framework, and it is now widely accepted that it is every individual’s basic human right to live in a pollution-free environment while maintaining complete human dignity. Our Constitution’s preamble promises a socialist society that prioritizes environmental conservation. The foundational obligations state clearly that all individuals have a responsibility to safeguard the ecosystem.

Download Now

The Directive Principles are also geared at the creation of a welfare system. Among the most important aspects of a welfare state is a respectful environment. Article 47 of the Constitution indicates that boosting the quality of nutrition and standard of life of its citizens, as well as improving public health, which includes environmental protection and improvement, are among the state’s primary responsibilities. Further, Article 48-A of the Constitution, indicates that the state must work to maintain and improve the environment, as well as the country’s forests and wildlife. Part III protects fundamental rights that are necessary for a person’s growth.

Environment and the Indian Constitution

It is widely acknowledged that there is currently a huge worldwide environmental catastrophe impacting the physical, natural, and human environment as a result of pollution in many forms. It is of serious importance to the international community that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. According to the UN-mandated multinational group on climate change, global temperature rises by 2100, ranging between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius.

Low-lying areas and smaller islands might be flooded if sea levels increase by 80 cm. According to predictions, heatwaves will become more frequent and extreme tropical cyclones will be increasingly severe, weather patterns will shift, and ice will melt. Environmental degradation is often generated not only by contamination of the atmospheric, sea, and coastal inland waterways through the disturbance of rural lands but also by the breakdown of ecological systems in natural regions and the negative impact of biocides on animals and plants life. Uneven distribution and the resulting deterioration of the world’s natural resources are another major cause of environmental deterioration.

Apex court concern

The Supreme Court of India expressed its concern over global environmental deterioration, stressing that experience in the recent past has realized the fatal repercussions of modernization on environments. Environmental deterioration is a severe concern all around the world as a result of indiscriminate development. The environment is being degraded as a result of industrialization, the combustion of fossil fuels, and vast deforestation. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the primary cause of global warming, are now 26% greater than pre-industrial levels.

If current levels of greenhouse gases are maintained, melting of polar ice and glaciers, as well as thermal expansion of seas, will result in widespread floods and an unexpected sea level rise. The depletion of ozone layers, which act as a screen to preserve life on earth from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, has been caused by massive amounts of gases and chemicals generated by industrial plants and automobiles. The phenomenon of “acid rain,” which is mostly produced by sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities, is a good example of it. Vegetables, soil, marine resources, and monuments, as well as individuals, are all affected by “acid rain.”

Need for action by forming International Community 

The worldwide community must be startled awake from its complacency to be ready to battle this environmental disaster by taking suitable precautions which should include not just pollutant regulation but also environmental protection and promotion. Members of the international community should become more environmentally active by becoming more aware of their environmental protection, which is implied in their dignified endeavour, to observe the 5th of June of each year as an International Environmental Day, which was established at the 1972 United Nations Summit on Environment and Development in Stockholm.

As previously stated, the dangers of environmental degradation have driven national states to create and enforce several regulations within their municipalities. India has joined the worldwide world in its fight against environmental challenges, first by modifying its fundamental law and then by enacting a slew of laws to safeguard the country’s environment. In some ways, the new Constitutional provisions have given the country’s environmental legislation the needed push.

State and environmental protection responsibility

The officials have a responsibility to uphold the law and maintain order for the benefit of the people who elected them. Article 47 requires the state to take into account the rising level of nutrition and standard of living of its citizens. Furthermore, the state’s principal responsibility is to promote overall welfare. It is the responsibility of the state to restrict the alcohol consumption and substances that can be harmful to the health of living organisms and pose a significant risk to their livelihoods, unless for medical purposes. 

The term “responsibility” can be understood to mean that the state must undertake meaningful, adequate, and essential efforts to enhance everyone’s health and level of life, as well as encourage environmental sustainability. Individuals cannot undertake environmental development activities that affect society as a whole. As a result, the state must maintain a close eye on these programs and projects.

The amount of environmental pollution has been steadily escalating for a variety of causes. Water pollution, for example, is frequently produced by the discharge of dirty water into rivers, which not only contaminates the country’s natural resources but also has an impact on inhabitants’ health. This necessitated the creation of provisions requiring the state to maintain and safeguard the environment.

In the case of Hamid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996), the state was negligent in providing water from handpumps, causing tremendous damage to the inhabitants and severely affecting their health. As a result of the state’s extreme carelessness, it was determined that the state had failed to discharge its basic obligation.

The Constitution was amended in 1976. Article 48-A was added to the Constitution as a result of this amendment, to provide greater provisions to conserve and preserve the environment. This article imposes an obligation on the state to maintain and improve the environment and safeguard the country’s forests and animals. In this article, the term “environment” has been used in a variety of ways. The government must not only act as a protector but also take appropriate actions to improve the environment.

In this country, every natural resource is connected to other natural resources. Forests are directly linked with supplying pollution-free air, aiding in global warming reduction, and are also connected to water supplies. They contribute to the preservation of ecological equilibrium. As a result, this resource is vital, and its protection is essential to avoid contamination in the atmosphere. As a result, the inclusion of this Section is justified.

Right to life and Environment Protection

The fundamental right to life is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It declares that no one’s right to life or personal liberty can be taken away from them except procedure established by law. The term “unless following processes established by law” can be read to suggest that this rule is subjected to exception and is governed by the law that varies depending on the circumstances. Because the provision begins with the word “no,” it has been assigned a negative impact. However, in the post-Maneka period, this provision has been given a positive connotation, implying that the state has a responsibility to ensure that the legislation is properly implemented.

The right to life encompasses both the right to a dignified life and the essentials of life, such as food, accommodation, clean water, and clothing. The right to life also includes the right to a decent and clean environment in which people can live safely without fear of harm. Diseases and illnesses of any kind must not exist in the environment.

This is important also because the right to life can only be realized when one resides in a healthy, secure, and disease-free environment; alternatively, providing such a right would be pointless. This aspect of Article 21 was clearly stated in the context of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), in which the petitioner and other citizens wrote to the Supreme Court expressing their opposition to progressive mining, which depleted the Mussoorie hills of trees and forests and caused soil erosion. This harmed the ecosystem, resulting in landslides and the obliteration of subsurface water routes.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court instructed the registry to treat this letter as a writ filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court constituted an expert committee to advise the Hon’ble court on several technical issues. The court ordered the limestone quarries to be stopped based on the expert committee’s report because they were violating the right to life and personal liberty. Quarrying operations result in environmental degradation, air, and water pollution, and have a significant impact on people’s lives.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled in L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1986), that protecting environmental cleanliness, sanitation, and health are protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. Because failure to do so can harm the lives of many individuals, as well as cause slow contamination and shorten a citizen’s life. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1987), the court held that it is the state’s responsibility to take necessary and efficient actions to protect and preserve Constitutional rights provided under Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A (g).

In M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1986), some stone smashing practices in and around Delhi were producing a big issue of pollution in the environment. The court was well aware of the unavoidable effects and environmental issues produced by the country’s economic activity. According to the court, it cannot be allowed, in the name of environmental protection, to affect the ecosystem and increase various types of pollutants to the point that it becomes a health concern to all inhabitants. According to the ruling, citizens also have a right to clean air and a pollution-free atmosphere through which to survive.

The scope of Article 21 has also been expanded by the judiciary to encompass the right to livelihood. It encompasses citizens’ rights to work and live, as well as their right to life. The broad application of this provision has shown to be useful in maintaining a close eye on the government’s behaviour and actions in the field of resource protection initiatives adopted by the agencies. It is also useful in keeping a check on state actions that might have a significant influence on the environment, individual health, and the life of the poor.

Environmental Protection and the Right to Equality

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection under the law. It cannot be infringed by the state since this fundamental right implies that the state must be fair when taking decisions relating to environmental protection. In cases when state authorities have exercised arbitrary powers, the courts have been severe in preventing the arbitrary sanction. The use of discretionary powers without regard for the public interest is a violation of the people’s fundamental right to equality.

In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S Muddappa (1991), the city improvement board of Bangalore created an improvement scheme for the objective of enlarging the city. A low-level park was to be built, and a portion of the land was set aside for it as part of this plan. However, the space set aside for the low-level park was to be transformed into a municipal amenity site, where the hospital would be built, on the orders of the chief minister. Residents went to the High Court as soon as the building began. The High Court granted the petition filed by the residents. However, the appellant argued before the supreme court that the power to allot lands is entirely discretionary and that the building authority has the right to enable the property to be used for a hospital rather than a park. As a result, in the opinion of the appellant, the diverted use of the land was justified.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by highlighting the significance of open spaces and parks in the establishment of metropolitan areas. The Hon’ble court went on to say that open spaces, recreation, playing fields, and environmental protection are all important in the public interest and necessary for development. Maintaining open spaces for the public good is justifiable, and they cannot be sold or leased to any private entity purely for financial gain.

Environment and freedom of speech and expression

Article 19(1)(a) of Part III of the Constitution specifically mentions the right to free speech and expression as a basic right. In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), the individuals demonstrated the violation of their right to a clean and safe environment as well as the right to livelihood. People decided to approach the court through the medium of freedom of speech by expressing themselves in the form of writing letters. In India, the media has played a significant role in shaping people’s attitudes about environmental issues. As a result, Article 19(1)(a) is construed to include press freedom as well.

Freedom of trade and commerce and environmental protection

Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, all Indian citizens have a basic right to engage in any profession, business, trade, or commerce at any location within the country’s territory. However, because this is not an absolute right, it is subject to some reasonable restrictions. Article 19(6) of the Constitution establishes reasonable restrictions on the basic right to protect the environment. The goal is to prevent creating ecological imbalances and degrading the environment in the name of conducting trade, business, occupation, or other activity. As a result, one cannot destroy the environment in the name of business or profession.

In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, numerous tanneries were pouring pollutants into the sacred river Ganga, causing water pollution. Moreover, despite the repeated warning, no primary treatment plant was being built. The court ordered the tanneries to halt operating because the pollutants discharged were ten times more toxic than the typical sewage water that runs into the river. The court ruled that tanneries that have failed to take the essential steps for the primary treatment of effluents from the industries to be shut down. While the court is concerned about the potential for job losses as a result of the closure of the tanneries, it believes that health, life, and the environment are more important in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court ordered that enterprises that did not comply or follow the Hon’ble court’s earlier order on the construction of air pollution management measures should be closed. The Supreme Court in this decision placed higher stress on Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

In S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1996), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that chlorofluorocarbon-free sea beaches and sea coasts were assumed gifts of the natural environment, and any activity that pollutes these natural resources or the gift of nature cannot be allowed to operate. A shrimp farming culture enterprise using modern methods has degraded the ecosystem, discharged polluting effluents, polluted drinkable groundwater, and depleted the plantation in this example. The court ruled that all of these operations violated Constitutional obligations as well as other environmental laws. The court went on to say that before any such industry can be installed in a sensitive coastal area, it must first pass a stringent environmental examination. To put it another way, severe limitations can be imposed under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Environmental legislations

Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986

The Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 was enacted as a broad piece of law that offers a comprehensive foundation for environmental preservation and enhancement. In terms of accountabilities, the Act and its accompanying Rules mandate acquiring environmental approvals for particular sorts of different projects (as defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994) and submitting a regulatory assertion to the State Pollution Control Board on an annual basis. Environmental approval is not required for hydroelectric projects.

SJVNL (Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd) conducts environmental impact assessments as a normal management method for all projects, as required by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and operates within allowable norms of ambient air cleanliness and noise ranges as set forth by national laws and international guidelines.

Air (prevention and control of pollution ) Act, 1981

The primary goal of this Act is to regulate the prevention, control, and alleviation of air quality, as well as the institution of board (central as well as state pollution control board), to perform out the aforementioned functions, as well as the bestowing and delegating of powers and responsibilities relevant to certain Boards. At the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972, which India attended, decisions were made to take suitable measures for the safeguarding of the earth’s natural resources, which included, among many other issues, the conservation of air quality and environmental regulations. As a result, it is judged essential to carry out the environmental safety regulations in so far as they pertain to the conservation of air quality and pollution management.

Water (Prevention & Control) Act, 1974

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act’s primary goals are to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution, as well as the preservation or reconstruction of the purity of water, and to provide for the institution, with a perspective to bringing out the aforementioned objectives of platforms for the prevention and control of water pollution, and also to impart on and designate rights and duties to such panels. 

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

Any mammal, bees, butterflies, crustacea, fish, and moths, as well as aquatic or land vegetation that forms part of any ecosystem, are considered “wildlife” under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. “No alteration of boundaries / National Park / Sanctuary shall be made by the State Government except on the recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL),” according to the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act of 2002. Furthermore, as per a Supreme Court order dated 13.11.2000, state governments must seek Supreme Court clearance before presenting a petition for forest land diversions in National Park sanctuaries.

Whenever a component of a Wildlife Sanctuary or National Park is impacted by a hydro project, the forest proposition regarding that construction process is only considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, only after authorization for de-reservation or de-notification of the Wildlife Sanctuary or National Park has been granted. The motion for de-reservation/de-notification was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after the suggestion of the NBWL Standing Committee.

Biological diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests following the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which India accepted on the 5th of June, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. This Act is intended to “provide for the protection of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits emerging from the use of biological resources, knowledge, and related matters.”

Several places that are rich in ecosystems and comprise distinct and diverse ecosystems are recognized and proclaimed as biosphere reserves under the act’s provisions to aid in their maintenance. All restrictions that apply to protected places such as national parks and sanctuaries apply to these reserves as well. While finalizing the project infrastructure locations, SJVNL (Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd) abides by the provisions of the act when applicable and tries to avoid these biosphere reserves.

Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Amendment Rules, 2003

The Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2003 categorize used mineral oil as hazardous waste, requiring correct collection and disposal. When necessary, the organization shall request permission from the respective State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) to dispose of hazardous waste.

Ozone-Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

Under Sections 6, 8, and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) has announced rules for management and supervision of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) under the Montreal protocol. Manufacturing, import, export, and use of these chemicals are all subject to certain controls and regulations, according to the notification. To become a chlorofluorocarbon-free organization, companies must phase out all equipment that uses these compounds following the provisions.

Landmark case

Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors.

In this case, certain residents of the municipality lodged a grievance with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, stating that the municipality is failing to create suitable drains, and there is a stench and stink created by the exertion of surrounding slum-dwellers, and the petitioners have been inconvenienced. The Ratlam district Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered the municipality to create a suitable strategic plan within six months of the citizens of Ratlam city filing a complaint (approved by the High Court). Following that, the municipality applied with the Supreme Court of India, alleging that it lacked the necessary financial assistance and resources to conform with the order of the sub-divisional magistrate of Ratlam city’s directive. Respondents asserted that the Ratlam City Municipality had failed to meet the obligations given by the sub-divisional magistrates to do something for the healthcare system, particularly failing to prevent pollution and other dangerous waste from entering their residences. Respondents were focused on preventing pollution produced by a local alcohol plant’s discharge, which resulted in malaria.

The Supreme Court ordered the Ratlam Municipal Council to quickly implement an order issued by the Ratlam city Sub Divisional Magistrate to safeguard the region from pollutants produced by an alcohol plant pouring into the residents’ neighbourhoods. The municipality must also take the required efforts to meet their obligations, including providing a suitable number of international laterals for men and women individually, as well as supplying water supply and scavenging service in the morning and evening to maintain good sanitation. The court further mandated that these duties be met within six months following the court’s decision.

The situation was caused by individual polluters and poor municipal planning, according to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a pollution-free environment is a fundamental aspect of Article 21’s right to life. The Court went on to say that if a municipality needs finances, it should approach the state government with elitist initiatives and request loans from the state government’s public health savings account to meet the resource needed for carrying out the court’s ruling.

Conclusion 

To summarise, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 21 has supported the development of environmental law in India while simultaneously enhancing human rights law. Numerous judgments have declared the right to a clean environment, safe drinking water, and a pollution-free atmosphere to be inherent human rights and, as a result, fundamental rights of Indian residents. Several cases have been and are still being monitored by the Court. It should be noted that the Court has consistently addressed environmental matters to specialists, and the Court has been formulating schemes, issuing directives, and closely monitoring their implementation.

Previously, the word “environment” was not principally defined in the Constitution, and there were no specific provisions in the Constitution to deal with environmental dangers and to govern the activities of the people who, in the name of trying to exercise their fundamental rights, were affecting a large part to damaging the health of the environment. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. As a result, including clauses that particularly address environmental issues would be helpful to the environment.

References

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here