HEALTH
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569214/
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Mohinder Singh Chawla Etc 1996 SC
It is now settled law that right to health is an integral to right to life.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595099/
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others 1983 SC
It is the fundamental right of every one in this Country, assured under the
interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullen's case, to live with
human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity,
enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State
Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 and at
the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength
of workers men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse,
opportunities and facilities for children to develop in healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions
of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist
in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central
Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will
deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646284/
Subhash Kumar v state of bihar 1991 SC
Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the
Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental
Rights of a citizen. Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the
Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free
water and air for full enjoyment of life . If anything endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art, 32 of
the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental
to the quality of life. A petition under Art. 32 for the prevention of pollution is
maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers
or journalists.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/205063/
T. Damodhar Rao And Ors. vs The Special Officer, Municipal
ANDHRA HIGH COURT 1987
24. From the above it is clear that protection of the environment is not only the duty
of the citizen but it is also the obligation of the State and all other State organs
including Courts. In that extent, environmental law has succeeded in unshackling
man's right to life and personal liberty from the clutches of common law theory of
individual ownership. Examining the matter from the above constitutional point of
view, it would be reasonable to hold that the enjoyment of life and its attainment and
fulfilment guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and
preservation of nature's gifts without life cannot be enjoyed. There can be no reason
why practice of violent extinguishment of life alone should be regarded as violative
of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused
by environmental pollution and spoilation should also be regarded as amounting to
violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution. In R. L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.
P., , the Supreme Court has entertained environmental complaints alleging that the
operations of lime-stone quarries in the Himalayan range of Mussoorie resulted in
depredation of the environment affecting ecological balance. In R. L. & E. Kendra,
Dehradun v. State of U. P., the Supreme Court in an application under Art. 32 has
ordered the closure of some of these quarries on the ground that their operations were
upsetting ecological balance. Although Art. 21 is not referred to in these judgments of
the Supreme Court, those judgments can only be understood on the basis that the
Supreme Court entertained those environmental complaints under Art. 32 of the
Constitution as involving violation of Art. 21's right to life.
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Gobind-Singh-Versus-Shanti-Sarup-1978-09-15
Govind Singh v Shanti swarup 1978
in a matter of this nature where what is involved is not merely the right of
a private individual but the health, safety and convenience of the public at
large, the safer course would be to accept the view of the learned
Magistrate, who saw for himself the hazard resulting from the working of
the bakery.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1509/Right-to-Clean-Environment:-A-basic-
Human-Right.html
Vellore citizens welfare forum v UOI 1996 SC
The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part
of the law of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of
life and personal liberty.
