WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY WASVIOLATED under

national and international level?

The disposal of biomedical waste cause greater impact globally if the biomedical waste doesn’t
been treated with systematic process according to the biomedical rules and guidelines
The Duty to Protect Environment: 1972 Stockholm Conference
It is the duty of every person to protect the environment and prevent its pollution. Domestic laws
and international treaties impose this duty on individuals and states. The United Nations has
convened an International Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972, says
about the concepts of sustainable development and Development without destruction evolved.
‘The present generation has an obligation to protect their future generations. A man has no right
to exploit the ecology to the detriment of to be born’. (Preamble, Charter of the UNO, 1945).
Right to healthy world:
The Stockholm conference in 1972 explained the imperative goal for mankind as to defend and
improve the human environment for present and future generations. Besides war, peace and
Development the International Law made a beginning in regulating the environmental issues.
Man has both a right to healthy world around and a solemn responsibility to protect and improve
the environs for the next generation.
The UN and WHO:
The United Nations General Assembly adopted World Charter for Nature in 1982 (UNGA
Resolution 37/7 GAOR, 37th Session) which explicitly states that the Governments have a duty
to pass on their natural heritage to future generations. The WHO regional office for Europe
convened a working group of medical professionals, hospital engineers and administrators,
which discussed infectious and hazardous waste as a potential risk to public health in 1983.
World Commission on Environment and Development & the Earth Summit:
The World Commission on Environment and Development WCED set of legal principles for
sustainable development and suggested for a global convention for this purpose. (World
Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987) For this purpose
and for arresting further degradation of the environment and to repair damage already done, the
Rio Earth Summit was convened by the UNGA. Maintenance of ecological balance, prevention
and control of environmental pollution, preservation of our natural resources, disaster mitigation
and sustainable development are the basic factors of the "Earth Charter", which is also called the
"Rio Declaration". (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 31 ILM 874, 1992)
International treaties, Conventions, Conferences and Protocols resulted in regulatory legislation
to protect the environment in several countries for framing policies to protect and improve
environment, preventing pollution, punishing environmental crimes, and for compensating the
persons affected by breach of protective provisions.
 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal (UNEP, 1992): The main objectives of the Basel Convention are to
minimize the generation of hazardous wastes, treat those wastes as close as possible to
where they were generated and reduce transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.
 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (UNEP, 2004): This convention
aims to reduce the production and use of persistent organic pollutants and to eliminate
uncontrolled emissions of substances such as dioxins and furans.
 Minamata Convention on Mercury (UNEP, 2009):The Minamata Convention for
Mercury is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from the adverse
effects of mercury. The major highlights of the Minamata Convention on Mercury
include a ban on new mercury mines, the phase-out of existing ones, control measures on
air emissions, and the international regulation of the informal sector for artisanal and
small-scale gold mining.

Section 2 (e) defines hazardous substance. It "means any substance or preparation which, by
reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to
human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment".
Section 3 gives a general power to the Government of India to take any measure in protecting the
environment, which includes imposing punishment and recovering compensation for the victims
of pollution.

A. RIGHT TO LIFE AND RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

The constitutional scheme to protect and preserve the environment has been provided under
Articles 14, 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) which includes fundamental right to have healthy and
pollution free environment, constitutional obligation of the State and fundamental duty of all
citizens of India to protect and improve the natural environment. Art. 21 is the heart of
fundamental rights and has received expanded meaning from time to time and there is no
justification as to why right to live in a healthy environment cannot be interpreted in it. For
healthy existence and preservation of the essential ingredients of life, right to life-a life of
dignity, to be lived in a proper environment, free of danger of disease and infection. It is an
established fact that there exists a close link between life and environment. The talk of
fundamental rights and in particular right to life would become meaningless if there is no healthy
environment.1The judicial grammar of interpretation has made “right to live in healthy
environment “as the sanctum sanctorum of Human Rights.

In Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab2 it was held that arbitrariness must be excluded from the law,
for if power is arbitrary, it is potential inequality, and Art 14 is fatally allergic to inequality of the
law.3The counsel for the respondent submits that matters of national importance cannot be
implemented negligently as has been done by the Government in the present matter. Hence,
violative of Art.14. Section 2(e)4 of the Environment Protection Act of 1986 defines,“ a
hazardous substance to mean any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or
physic-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living
creatures, plants, micro-organisms, property or the environment.”
Exposure to toxic substance may cause acute or chronic health effects. Article 21 of the
constitution5 states that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure establishes hed by law’ Right to life, enshrined in Art, 21 means
something more than survival or animal existence. It would mean the right to live with human
dignity6 .

1
P.S.JASWAL,ENVRONMENTALAW48,(Pioneer Publication 2010)
2
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321.
3
ARVIND P DATAR, Commentary on the Constitution of India, WADHWA NAGPUR, (2nded: 2007)
4
sec 2(e), THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
5
Art. 21, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
6
Francis coralie mullin v. Union territory Delhi, Administrator, SC 1981 746.
Article 21 of the Constitution envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person. The word
“Life” under Article 21 means a quality of life, which includes right of food, and reasonable
accommodation to live in7and the right to a whole some environment. Also ICCPR8, UDHR9and
ICESCR10 recognizes right to life and adequate standard of living. Further in order to establish
violation of Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of
reasonableness under Article 19.11 Article14 strikes arbitrariness because it negates equality12and
permeates the entire fabric of Rule of Law.13 Therefore, every action of the State must be guided
by reason for public good and not by whim, caprice, and abuse of power.14

Article 19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be reasonable if it strikes a balance

between the fundamental right and restriction imposed thereon.15 Article 48A requires that the
state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest In
Charal lal sahu v. Union of India16 , the Supreme Court of India while upholding the validity of
the Bhopal Gas Leak disaster held that ‘in context of our national dimensions of human rights,
right to life, liberty, pollution free air and water is guaranteed by the constitution under Article
21,48-A and 51-A(g). It is the duty of the state to take effective steps to protect the guaranteed

7
Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totamen, AIR 1990 SC 630.
8
Article 6, ICCPR.
9
Article 3, UDHR.
10
Article 11, ICESCR.
11
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.
12
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman,AIR 2005 SC 2021.
13
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
14
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514; Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee, (2005)
9SCC 779.
15
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
16
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613.
constitutional rights. In KL Koolwal v. Sate 17, the Rajasthan high court held that maintenance of
health, preservation of sanitation and environment falls within the preview of Article 21 of the
Constitution as it adversely affects the life of the citizen and it amounts to slow poisoning and
reducing the life of the citizen because of the hazards created, if not checked.

In Vellore citizens welfare forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that in view of the
constitutional provisions contained in articles 21, 47, 48-A, 51-A(g) and other statutory
provisions contained in the Water Prevention and control of pollution Act, 1974, the Air
Prevention and control of pollution Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the
“precautionary principles” and the “polluter pays principle” are part of the environmental
law of the country. In other words, two basic principles of sustainable development can be
derived from various provisions including the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.18

The states are liable according to international obligation under the convention and shall
pay compensation and other adequate reliefs in respect of damage caused by the hospital. [Art.
235]19 Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to live with human dignity
encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance
free from pollution of air, water etc. without which the life cannot be enjoyed. In this case it
can be seen that the adversely affected the life of the people by BMW releasing the chemicals
without treating them and also by polluting the environment. There has been a violation of right
to healthy environment and also right to live with dignity by the respondents.

B RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

The judicial grammar interpretation has further broadened the scope and ambit of article 21 and

17
KL Koolwal v. State, AIR 1988 RAJ. 2.
18
Supra note 69 at 54.
19
(EBC PUBLISHING 2015) Ibid.
‘Right to life’ also includes the ‘right to livelihood’20. This right cannot be extended to carrying
on trade or business which is injurious to public interest or has insidious effect on public morale
or public order.21Any governmental action which has an environmental impact that threatens the
poor people of their livelihood by dislocating them from their place of living or otherwise
depriving them of their livelihood, action can be taken. No person can be deprived of his life
except according to the procedure established by law which has to be ‘just, fair and
reasonable’.22
It is also contended that the state is under an obligation to provide citizens the necessities of life
and, in appropriate cases; the courts have the power to issue orders directing the state affirmative
action, to promote and protect the right to life. Social commitment is the quintessence of our
Constitution which defines the conditions under which liberty has to be enjoyed and justice has
to be administered.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India,23a public interest litigation was filed to protect Delhi from the
environmental pollution caused by hazardous industries. The court held that such industries need
to be shifted or relocated. The Supreme Court, in order to mitigate the hardship to the employees
of such industries, specified the rights and benefits to which workmen employed in these
industries were entitled. Thus, the Supreme Court protected the right to livelihood of workmen
and tried to balance the industrial development and environment protection. The means of living
are as much important as oxygen is to biological life and since in our norms of human dignity we
have valued life as much more than mere biological existence, the importance of the means of
living cannot be over emphasized. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have
deprived him of his life.

20
State of HP v. Umed Ram, AIR 1986 SC 847.
21
DDBASU,SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 261(WADHWA AND PUBLICATION 2000).
22
Supra note 77.
23
Supra note 6.