JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus

ASSIGNMENT

SUBJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
INTRODUCTION

In the year 1972 our Prime Minister late Mrs. Indira Gandhi attended the United
Nations Conference on Human Environment and Development at Stockholm. In
that conference the following two resolutions were passed which are known as the
Magna Carta of our environmental law:

(a) Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of
life in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being;

(b) Man bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generations

Environmental degradation in India has been caused by a variety of social,

economic, institutional and technological factors. Rapidly growing population,
urbanization and industrial activities have all resulted in considerable deterioration
in the quality and sustainability of the environment. It is important to recognize our
dependence on the earth's 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.

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.

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. After the problem raised alarms 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.

ARTICLE 21:-

While the apex court was reluctant for a short period to make a specific mention,
various high courts in the country went ahead and enthusiastically declared that the
right to environment was included in the right to life concept in art 21 of the
Constitution. In comprehending the right to environment, the high courts were
more specific and direct. T. Damodhar Rao v Special Officer, Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad1 is a landmark decision. In this case the people living
in a residential area challenged the attempt to convert open space in their vicinity
into another residential complex. Agreeing with the challenge, the court held that
the directions in the development plan on the nature of the use as open space would
prevail. The ownership subsequently acquired stood curtailed by the development
plan, and that the attempts to build houses in such open space were contrary to law.

In V. Lakshmipathy v State of Karnataka2 , the high court held that once a

development plan had earmarked the area for residential purpose, the land is bound
to be put to such use only. Interestingly, the respondents in the case neither denied
the existence of pollution from the industrial undertakings, nor came forward to
explain what measures were taken to curtail pollution. Allowing the petition, the

1
AIR 1987 AP 171
2
AIR 1992 Kart 57
court pointed out: Entitlement to a clean environment is one of the recognized
basic human rights and human rights jurisprudence cannot be permitted to be
thwarted by status quo on the basis of unfounded apprehensions.

The court laid down the following in unmistakable terms.

The right to life inherent in Art 21 of the Constitution of India does not fall short of
the requirement of quality of life which is possible only in an environment of
quality where, on account of human agencies, the quality of air and quality of
environment are threatened or affected, the court would not hesitate to use its
innovative power... to enforce and safeguard the right to life to promote public
interest.

The decision in Lakshmipathy clearly and specifically declares that art 21

guarantees right to environment.

The importation of the ‘due process’ clause by the activist approach of the
Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi’s case3 has revolutionized the ambit and scope
of the expression ‘right to life’ embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution. The
right to live in healthy environment is one more golden feather of Article 21.

The right connotes that the enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfillment
guaranteed by Article 21 embraces the protection and preservation of nature’s gift
without which life cannot be enjoyed.

There are certain remarkable judicial pronouncements in recent years, more

specially relating to Article 21 of the Constitution dealing with 'the right to life'.
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

3
Maneka Gandhi V Union ofIndia, AIR 1978 SC 597
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.

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.
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 and fanciful act on the part of any state, depriving the
life or personal liberty would be against Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

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
Subhash Kumar Case4 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.

4
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 42)
In Subhash Kumar,5 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.6The 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.

FOLLOWING OUR THE LIST OF CASES IN WHICH SUPREME COURT

STATED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION:-

1. In Subhash Kumar vs. State. Of Bihar- 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

5
Ibid
6
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1991) AIR SC 813 (Vehicular Pollution Case)
 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.

2. In M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India (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.

3. In Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (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.

4. In M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath, 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.

5. In Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi, 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.

Some judgments are not directly related to environmental cases, but also have
significant implications for the struggle to establish environment as a human right.
Mention should especially be made of a number of cases aforesaid 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.

The poor and disprivileged 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 kind's 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 characterized by the massive expansion of

energy and resource-intensive industrial and urban activity, and major projects like
large dams, commercial forestry, and mining and chemical-intensive 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.
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 India's 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 citizen's 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 above-mentioned 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.