Role of Judiciary on Environmental issues | Environmental Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Right to Environment as a Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 'due process' clause in Maneka Gandhi's case has expanded the meaning of 'right to life' in Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to a healthy environment is now considered a crucial part of this right, emphasizing the importance of protecting nature for a fulfilling life.

In Ratlam Municipality v Vardichand(1980), the Supreme Court indirectly recognized the right to a healthy environment. The case involved the Municipal Council of Ratlam's failure to maintain sanitation, which posed a health hazard. The Court, while not explicitly mentioning Article 21, based its decision on the right to live with dignity and decency.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC

• The Supreme Court, through Justices V. R. Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy, addressed the issue of environmental degradation in the case of Ratlam Municipality. They emphasized that the lack of proper sanitation by the Municipal Council posed a health risk to the residents.
• The Court's decision drew from a previous ruling (Govind v Shanti Sarup) where Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked to safeguard the environment for the greater public good. Although Article 21 of the Constitution was not explicitly referenced in the judgment, it was evident that the Court was upholding the right to live with dignity and decency, which is integral to the right to life.
• In another significant case,Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court continued this approach by indirectly incorporating Article 21 into its reasoning, aligning it with Article 48-A of the Constitution.
• The Court intervened based on a letter alleging that unauthorized mining activities in the Mussorie-Dehradun region were disrupting the ecological balance and causing environmental harm. The bench, comprising Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice A. N. Sen, and Justice Ranganath Misra, ordered the cessation of mining operations due to the ecological risks and threats to a healthy environment.
• A notable aspect of this decision was the Court's transformation of a letter into a writ petition under Article 32, without invoking any specific article from the fundamental rights chapter. This suggests that while the Court refrained from directly citing Article 21, it recognized the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right.
• In the case of M. C. Mehta v Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries and Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case-1), the petitioner sought action against oleum gas leaks and the closure of a Shriram Food and Fertilizers unit. The Court allowed the plant to restart under strict conditions but emphasized that any hazardous or dangerous industry had an absolute duty to the community to prevent harm.
• In this case, the Court did not explicitly reference Article 21. However, in the Oleum Gas Leak Case, Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati clearly regarded the right to a healthy environment as fundamental under Article 21. The case was escalated to the Apex Court by a reference from a three-Judge Bench.
• The Chief Justice highlighted the necessity for a legal framework recognizing strict and absolute liability for hazardous industries impacting the environment and human life. He advocated for the evolution of a new principle of liability in India, similar to those established in England, to address the challenges posed by hazardous industries in an industrial economy.
• A significant aspect of this litigation was the Court's resolution of liability and compensation issues without addressing the jurisdictional question in a writ petition against Shriram Enterprises for violating Article 21. The Supreme Court's judgment influenced various High Courts.

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 424

• The petitioner filed a public interest litigation to ensure pollution-free water and air.
• Justice K. N. Singh and Justice N. D. Ojha ruled that the right to live, as per Article 21, includes the right to enjoy life.
• Citizens have the right to seek Article 32 to remove water or air pollution affecting life quality.
• Legal and constitutional measures are necessary for environmental management, but the lasting solution lies in people's inner commitment to environmental protection.
• Mass education and awareness are crucial for ecological balance.
• Although 'environment' isn't explicitly in the Constitution, legislative lists empower the Centre and states to make environmental laws.
• The Supreme Court eventually recognized the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
• Conflicts of rights, like freedom of speech, business, religion, and equality, arise against the right to a healthy environment.
• The constitutional mandate of directive principles and the fundamental duty to protect the environment help reconcile these conflicts.

Right to live with human dignity

• The concepts of 'the right to life,' 'personal liberty,' and 'procedure established by law' in art 21 of the Constitution were dormant during the national emergency.
• However, in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and personal liberty under art 21 can only be restricted by a procedure that is 'just, fair, and reasonable,' rather than a narrow interpretation of legal and constitutional guarantees.
• This decision in art 21 emphasized procedural justice and broadened the scope of substantive rights.
• The right to life is not limited to mere existence; it encompasses the right to live with basic human dignity.

Ecological Balance

• Do the new dimensions of the right to life extend to the right to health and other hygienic conditions? The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 652 is the first case where the Supreme Court made an attempt to look into this question. It ordered the closure of mining operations in certain areas, though in certain other areas it allowed them to be phased out in due course. Notably, the court considered the hardship caused to the lessees, but was of the view that it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance to ecological balance. 
• For rehabilitation of the lessees, it was suggested that preference must be given to them when mining leases were granted in other areas of the state. The case was filed under art 32 of the Constitution, and orders were given with emphasis on the need to protect the environment. It is evident that the court was evolving a new right to environment, without specifically mentioning it.

The Mehta Cases

• The right to a humane and healthy environment is indirectly endorsed in the M.C. Mehta cases from the 1980s.
• In the first M.C. Mehta case, the court addressed the impact of industrial activities on workers and the public.
• Oleum gas leakage from a factory caused fatalities and health issues.
• The court outlined conditions for restarting hazardous industries, raising questions about arts 21 and 32 of the Constitution.
• The second M.C. Mehta case modified some conditions, while the third case focused on compensation for oleum gas leakage victims.
• The court entertained petitions under art 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights and laid down compensation principles.
• Although the right to a clean and healthy environment was not explicitly declared, the court established absolute liability principles through interpretation of constitutional provisions.
• The first M.C. Mehta case expanded the right to life, allowing state restrictions on hazardous activities to protect public health.
• The third case emphasized the right to compensation for pollution victims.
• The fourth M.C. Mehta case did not reference the right to life or environmental protection, but recognized pollution's impact on life, health, and ecology.
• The fifth case addressed locus standi, allowing public interest petitions for protecting lives affected by river Ganga pollution.
• Throughout these cases, the Supreme Court did not explicitly state that the right to environment is part of arts 21 and 32.
• However, the court's actions under art 32 aimed to protect lives, health, and ecology, highlighting the comprehensive nature of the right to life.
• The right to life encompasses the right to a clean, humane, and healthy environment, along with fair compensation for violations.

High Courts Initiation for Protection of Environment

• 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 Hyderabad is a landmark decision.
• 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 Karnataka, 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 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.
• In LK Koolwal v State of Rajasthan,AIR 1988 Raj 2 the right was based for a demand for cleaning the city of Jaipur and saving it from unhygienic conditions.
• Looking at the impact of art 51-A(g) of the Constitution, the Rajasthan High Court was of the view that though termed as duty, the provision gives citizens a right to approach the court for a direction to the municipal authorities to clean the city, and that maintenance of health, sanitation and environment falls within art 21, thereby rendering the citizens the fundamental right to ask for affirmative action.

The Apex Court Strikes

Introduction

• In the early nineties, the Supreme Court came close to recognizing the right to a clean environment under Article 21 in the cases of Chetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar.
• In Chhetriya Pardushan, Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee emphasized that every citizen has a fundamental right to enjoy a quality of life as per Article 21.
• In Subhash Kumar, Justice K.N. Singh vividly stated that the right to live includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air for a fulfilling life.

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v Union of India

• In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed the environmental damage caused to the village of Bichiri near chemical industries producing toxic materials.
• The Court held the industry responsible for the environmental harm and instructed the Central Government to recover costs for remedial actions if the industry failed to act.
• The Court emphasized its duty to intervene when authorities jeopardize citizens' right to life by failing to take necessary actions.
• This case marked a significant moment in social action litigation, as the Court protected the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens affected by environmental degradation.

Right to a Healthy Environment: Universal Acceptance

• The right to a healthy environment became firmly established within Article 21 of the Constitution, with courts increasingly relying on this right to address various aspects of environmental protection and improvement.
• The Supreme Court unequivocally accepted that Article 21 encompasses the right to a healthy and hygienic environment.
• In the case of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. MV Nayudu, the Court highlighted the equal importance of environmental concerns and human rights, both rooted in Article 21.
• The preservation of community material resources such as forests, tanks, ponds, and hillocks was emphasized by the Court in Hinch Lai Tiwari v. Kamala Devi as essential for maintaining ecological balance and ensuring a quality of life, a core aspect of Article 21.
• In KM Chinnappa v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life in Article 21 as encompassing the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological balance, and sanitation, all critical for a fulfilling life.
• The Court clarified in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath that any disturbance to fundamental environmental elements like air, water, and soil would be hazardous to life under Article 21.

Constitutional Mandate

• The right to a healthy environment emerged from judicial interpretations expanding the dimensions of Article 21 in the Constitution.
• The forty-second amendment added Article 48A to the Directive Principles and Article 51A(g) as a fundamental duty, imposing on the state and citizens the responsibility to protect and improve the environment.
• These constitutional provisions laid the groundwork for the development of environmental jurisprudence in India.
• In the case of T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Andhra Pradesh High Court invoked Articles 51A(g) and 48A to prevent the conversion of an open space into a residential complex, emphasizing the duty of both citizens and the state to protect the environment.
• The Rajasthan High Court, in L.K. Koolwal v. State, highlighted the negligence of municipal authorities in maintaining hygiene in Jaipur and directed them to clean the city, stressing the fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51A(g) to protect and improve the environment.
• The Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, emphasized Articles 39(e),47, and 48A as collectively imposing a duty on the state to secure public health, improve public health, and protect and improve the environment.
• To safeguard the health of Delhi's populace, the Court ordered the phasing out of highly polluting old vehicles and non-CNG buses, rejecting the government's argument of CNG shortage.
• Indian courts gradually expanded the concept of quality of life and its implications for various environmental issues, predominantly relying on the right to life in Article 21.
• In certain cases, a broader perspective encompassing fundamental rights, directive principles, and fundamental duties related to the environment was adopted.
• These provisions established a constitutional mandate for the protection and improvement of the environment.
• Once the fundamental right to a healthy environment under Article 21 was acknowledged, it was likely to extend beyond humans, encompassing entities with legal personality.
• As articulated by Justice Douglas, inanimate objects could also be regarded as silent participants in environmental litigation.
• The verdict in the Sludge case represented the interests of a village, its soil, irrigation canals, wells, cattle, and trees, reflecting the suffering caused by the accumulation of toxic waste long after the cessation of industrial activities.
• Judicial activism soared to such levels that when the written law appeared inadequate, courts readily invoked the right to quality of life to eliminate environmental hazards.