FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE IN A

HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
Introduction:
The right to live in a clean and healthy environment is not a recent
invention of the higher judiciary in India. This right has been recognised by the
legal system and by the judiciary in particular for over a century or so. The
only difference in the enjoyment of the right to live in a clean and healthy
environment today is that it has attained the status of a fundamental right the
violation of which, the constitution of the India will not permit.
It was only from the late eighties and there after various High Courts
and the Supreme Court of India have designated this right as a fundamental
right. Prior to this period, as pointed out earlier the people of this country has
enjoyed this right. Not as a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right but a
right recognised and enforced by the courts of law under different laws, like
Law of Torts, Indian Penal Code, Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure
Code, etc.
 DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION
THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION OF 1938 AND 1941 WAS A LANDMARK DECISION ABOUT A
DISPUTE OVER ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
THIS WAS THE FIRST DECISION TO RECOGNIZE INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED TO ANOTHER NATION, EVEN WHEN NO EXISTING TREATY CREATED AN OBLIGATION TO
PREVENT SUCH DAMAGE. THE DAMAGE GIVEN FROM CANADA WAS AROUND $ 350,000.

A tribunal was set up by Canada and the United States to resolve a dispute over timber and crop damages caused by a smelter on the Canadian
side of the border. The tribunal decided that Canada had to pay the United States for damages, and further that it was obliged to abate the
pollution. In delivering their decision, the tribunal made an historic and often-cited declaration: "Under the principles of international law, as well
as of the law of the United States, no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to
the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and
convincing evidence..."
 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
• FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY
ENVIRONEMENT.

• LATE 80’S ONLY THE HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURTS OF

INDIA HAS DESIGNATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT AS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

• IT WAS REOGNISED EARLIER IN VARIOUS LAW LIKE LAW OF

TORTS,IPC,CPC AND CRPC.

• ICCPR AND ICESCR IN 1966 AS I &II GEN RIGHTS AND ENVT

RIGHTS AS III GEN RIGHTS
 RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVT AS BASIC
HUMAN RIGHT IN INTERNTIONAL CONFERENCES
• RIGHT TO LIVE BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL HR’S IMPLIES THE RIGHT
TO LIVE W/O THE DELETERIOUS INVASION OF POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION AND ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCES.

• ECOLOGICAL BALANCE - “STUDY OF HOME” IN LATIN TERM, MEANS “ STUDY

OF HOW ORGANISMS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AND THIER PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT” AND THEIR BALANCE WITH THE ECOSYSTEM AND THE
SURROUNDING FEATURES AND CREATURES.

• EVERY ONE HAS RIGHT TO LIFE(ART 3 OF UDHR 1948 ) AND EVERYONE HAS A
RIGHT TO A STANDARD OF LIVING ADEQUATE FOR THE HEALTH AND WELL
BEING OF HIS FAMILY (ART 25 UDHR 1948).

• ICCPR AND ICESCR RECOGNISED STATES DECLARED TO GIVE THE ABOVE

CONCEPTION OF RIGHT IN THIER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. ENJOYMENT OF
HIGHEST ATTAINABLE STANDARD OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH AS
THIER RIGHTS.
 RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVT AS BASIC
HUMAN RIGHT IN INTERNTIONAL CONFERENCES

• ECPHRFF1950- EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF HUMAN

RIGHTS AND FUNDMENTAL FREEDOM- – EVERY ONES RIGHT TO LIFE
SHALL BE PROTECTED BY LAW.

• UNCHE 1972- MAN HAS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND

ADEQUATE CONDITINS OF LIFE, IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF QUALITY THAT
PERMITS A LIFE OF DIGNITY AND WELL BEING.(STOCKHOLM DECLARATION
1972)

• UNCED 1992- RIO DECLARATION- HUMAN BEINGS ARE AT THE CENTRE OF OUR
CONCERN FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A
HEALTHY AND PRODCUTIVE LIFE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE.
RIGHT TO LIVE IN HEALTHY ENVT AS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

.
• SWIZTERLAND-ART 24 ON 1976
• FEDERAL LEGISLATURE SHALL ENACT LAWS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF
MAN AND HIS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AGAINST BURDENSOME INFLUENCES.
• GREECE-ART-24 ON 1975
• THE PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT CONSTITUTES A
DUTY OF THE STATE.
• PROTUGAL- ON 1976 REVISED ON 1982
• CONTAINS BOTH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY
REALTING TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
• SPAIN- ON 1978- ART 45
• EVERYONE HAS RIGHT TO ENJOY AN ENVIRONMENT SUITABLE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERSON AS WELL AS DUTY TO PRESERVE IT.
 RIGHT TO LIVE IN HEALTHY ENVT AS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

• CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES FOR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT .

• NETHERLAND ON 1983-ART 21
• IT SHALL BE THE CONCERN OF THE AUTHORITIES TO KEEP THE COUNTRY
HABITABLE AND TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE ENVT.
• FEDRAL REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL ON 1988-ART 225
• EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO AN ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT
• INDIA ON 1976 42ND AMENDMENT IN 48A AND 51A(g)
• 48A - STATE SHALL ENDEAVOUR TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE ENVT TO SAFE GUARD
THE FOREST AND WILDLIFE OF THE COUNTRY
• 51A(g)- IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY CITIZEN OF INDIA “ TO PROECT AND IMPORVE THE
NATURAL ENVT INCLUDING FOREST, LAKES, RIVERS AND WILD LIFE AND TO HAVE
COMPASSION FOR LIVING CREATURES.
 EVOLUTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE IN
HEALTHY ENVT IN INDIA
• ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OR RIGHTS MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALISED EITHER EXPLICITLY BY AMENDING
THE CONSTITUTION OR IMPLICITLY BY INTERPRETING THE EXISTING CONSTITUIONAL LANGUAGE TO
INCLUDE ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION.

• THE HIGHER JUDICIARY HAVE INTERPERETED THE EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS “THE RIGHT

TO LIFE” GUARANTEED UNDER ART 21 TO MEAN RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

• IMPORTANT CASES
• DOON VALLEY CASE:
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V STATE OF UP (AIR 1985 SC 652)-
SC EVOLVED NEW RIGHT TO ENVT RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVT . IT DIDNOT MENTION
OR DISCUSSED THE SOURCE OF RIGHT.

• OLEUM GAS LEAKAGE CASE: (FIRST MC MEHTA CASE)

• MC MEHTA V. SHRI RAM FOOD AND CHEMICAL INDUSTIRES (AIR 1987 SC 985).

• THIS CASE RAISED SOME SEMINAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF ARTICLES 21

AND 32 BY CONSITUTION. MANIFESTLY REFERRRING TO THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO LIFE IN ART 21 AND

THE PROCESS OF VINDICATION(SUSPICION) OF THAT RIGHT IN ART 32

• MC MEHTA V. SHRI RAM FOOD AND CHEMICAL INDUSTIRES (AIR 1987 SC 982). (SECOND MC MEHTA
CASE) REFERRI NG TO THE FIRST CASE GAVE CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO RESTART THE INDUSTRIES
 EVOLUTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE IN HEALTHY
ENVT IN INDIA

• MC MEHTA VS SHRI RAM FOOD AND CHEMICAL INDUSTIRES (AIR 1987 SC 1086). (THIRD

MC MEHTA CASE)- DETERMINED TO PAY THE COMPENSTATION TO THE VICTIMS. EVEN THEN
COURT SPECIFICALLY DID NOT DECLARED THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY

ENVT UNDER 21

• (GANGA POLLUTION CASE)

• MC MEHTA VS STATE OF U.P (AIR 1988 SC 1037) (FOURTH MC MEHTA CASE)- SETUP OF
EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE TANNERIES NEAR BY INDO GANGETIC PLAIN TO SAFE

GUARD THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE.

• (KANPUR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA CASE)

• MC MEHTA VS STATE OF U.P (AIR 1988 SC 1115) (FIFTH MC MEHTA CASE)- DIRECTIONS
WERE ALSO EXTENDED TO MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ALL OTHER MAHAPALIKAS AND

MUNICIPALITIES WHICH HAVE JURISDICTION OVER AREAS THROUGH WHICH RIVER GANGA

FLOWS.

• FROM ALL ABOVE THESE CASES THE SC HAS ENNUMERATED THE RIGHTS DECLARED FORM ART

21 . HOWEVER THE COURT GAVE DIRECTION IN ALL CASES UNDER ART 32 TO ENFORCE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
 DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVT BY
HIGH COURTS
• SC WAS RELUCTANT FOR SHORT PERIOD TO DECLARE LIFE TO LIFE U/A 21. INCLUDED THE RIGHT
TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IN HIGH COURTS DECLARED THESE RIGHTS AS
INTEGRAL PART OF LIFE

• DECIDED CASES IN HIGH COURTS OF VARIOUS STATES IN INDIA.

• IN ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
• DAMOHDAR RAO V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD (AIR 1987 AP 170)- THIS CASE WAS
FILED AGAINST THE BUILDING OF RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS FOR LIC IN AREA EARMARKED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AS OPEN SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ( PUBLIC LAND FOR SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT)

• M.P. RAM BABU V. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, (AIR 2002 A.P.256)- THE COURT HELD THAT U
NLESS THE TRADE OR PROFESSION IS ENVT FRIENDLY, SUCH TRADE HAS NO RIGHT OVER THE SOCIETAL RIGHT
TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVT. COURT GAVE PRECEDNECE OVER THE RIGHT TO CLEAN ENVT .

• IN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

• L.K KOOLWAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AIR 1988 RAJ 2)- THIS CASE WAS FILED SEEKING THE A DIRECTION TO
CLEAN THE CITY OF JAIPUR AND SAVE IT FORM UNHYGENIC CONDITIONS. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF
MUNICPAL ATHORITIES TO KEEP THE EVNT CLEAN AND HEALTHY.

• VIJAY SINGH PUNIYA V.STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AIR 2004 RAJ 1)- ANY PERSON WHO DSITURBS THE ECOLOGICAL
BALANCE OR DEGREDAES, POLLUTES AND TINKERS WITH THE GIFTS OF NATURE SUCH AS AIR,WATER, RIVER,SEA
AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF NAUTRE NOT ONLY VIOLATES THE F.R U/A 21 BUT ALSO BREACHES F.D U/A 51A(g)
 DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVT BY
HIGH COURTS

• IN KERALA HIGH COURT

ATTAKOYAL THANGAL V. UNION OF INDIA (KLT 580)- THIS CASE WAS FILED TO QUESTION THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTOF SCHEME FOR PUMPING GROUND WATER FOR SUPPLYING POTABLE WATER
TO LACCADIVES BECAUSE OF THE APPREHENSION THAT EXCESSIVE DRAWAL OF GROUNDWATER WILL
RESULT IN SALT WATER INTRUSION INTO THE AQUIFIERS

• IN KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

• V. LAKSHMIPATHY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (AIR 1990 KAR 57)- THIS CASE WAS FILED CHALLENGING
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTIRES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS CONTRARY TO THE ZONING OF LAND USE
IN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANNING LAWS.

• IN MADHYAPRADESH HIGH COURT

• SAYEED MASOOD ALI V. THE STATE OF M.P. (AIR 2001 M.P.220)- THIS WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY A
CARDIAC PATIENT AGAINST NOISE POLLUTIN CAUSED BY LOUDSPEAKERS IN DHARMASHALA RUN BY
THE RESPONDENT. THE SILENCE ZONE WAS ESTABLISHED THOUGHT HIS CASE.
 DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVT BY
HIGH COURTS

• IN DELHI HIGH COURT

• FREE LEGAL AID CELL V. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI (AIR 2001 DELHI 455)-

• NOISE CAN ALSO BE CALLED AS AN POLLUTANT BECAUSE IT ALSO CONTAMINATE THE ENVT DUE
NUISANCES AND AFFECTS THE HEALTH OF THE PERSONS. THIS PIL, WAS FILED AGAINST THE ADVERSE
EFFECTS OF DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS AND USE OF HIGH SOUNDING EXPLOSIVE FIREWORKS ON THE
HEALTH OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN.

• IN MADRAS HIGH COURT

• M.K JANARDHANAM V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVALLUR (2002-1-LW.262) –

• THIS WAS A CONTMEPT APPLICATION IN WIRT PETITION AGAINST LARGE SCALE ILLICIT, IRREGULAR AND
ILLEGAL QUARRYING OF SAND FROM THE RIVERBANK OF KUSASTHALAI RIVER IN TIRUVALLUR
DISTRICT. WITH CONSIDERATION THAT ART 21 PRESERVEAND PROTECT THE ENVIROMENT BY
EMBARCING OUR DUTY.
 DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY
ENVT BY SUPREME COURTS

• THE SC OF INDIA FOR THE FIRST TIME DECLARED THAT THE RIGHT TO
ENVIRONMENT IS CONTEMPLATED U/A, 21, OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. JUSTICE
SUBYASHJI MUKHERJEE OBSEVED THAT “ EVERY CITIZEN HAS A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO HAVE THE ENJOYMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND LIVING AS
CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

• DECIDED CASES FROM SC OF INDIA:

• CHHETRIYA PRADHUSHAN MUKTI SANGARSH SAMITI V. STATE OF U.P. (AIR1990 SC 2060)-
IN THIS CASE LETTER WAS SENT TO COURT TAKEN AS WRIT PETITION U/A 32. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
CERTAIN OIL MILLS AND REFINERIES LOCATED IN THE SARNATH AREA CAUSES ENVTAL POLLUTION AND
THERE BY SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD. THE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN U/A 32.

• SUBASH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 1991 SC 420)-

• THIS CASE WAS PIL FILED AGAINST POLLUTION OF BOKARO RIVER BY SLUDGE/SLURRY
DISCHARGED FROM THE WASHERIES OF THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. IT WAS
ALLEGED THAT THE RELEASE OF EFFLUENT INTO RIVER RESULTS IN MAKING THE WATER UNFIT
FOR DRINKING PURPOSES AND FOR IRRIGATION.
 DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY
ENVT BY SUPREME COURTS

• BANGALORE MDEICAL TRUST V. B.S.MUDAPPA (AIR 1991 SC1902)- THIS CASE WAS FILED
CHALLENGING THE LEASING OF AN OPEN SPACE LAID DOWN IN A DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR A PRIVATE
NURSING HOME.

• VIRANDAR GAUR V. STATE OF HARYANA (1995) 2SCC 577- SC RECITING THE STOCKHOLM
DECLARATION. IN THIS CASE THE ORDER OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE GOVT PERMITTING THE
BUILDING OF DHARMASALAS IN THE OPEN SPACE EARMARKED TO PROVIDE THE RESIDENCE OF THE
LOCALITY PUBLIC AMENITIES SUCH AS RECREATION, PLAY SPACE, VENTILATION.

• B.L WADHERA V. UNION OF INDIA (1996) 2SCC 594 - THE PIL WAS FILED AGAINST THE MUNICIAPL
CORPORATION OF DELHI FOR THE NON-PEROFRMANCE OF MANDATORY DUTIES LIKE GARBAGE
CLEARANCE, DISPOSAL OF BIO-MEDICAL WASTE, SCAVENGING AND CLEANING DELHI CITY. RATLAM
MUNICIAPALITY RULE WAS APPLIED.

• VELLORE CITIZEN WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1996 SC 2715)- THIS PIL WAS
DIRECTED AGAINST THE POLLUTION WHICH IS BEING CAUSED BY ENORMOUS DISHCARGE OF
UNTREATED EFFLUENT BY THE TANNERIES INTO AGRICULOTURAL FIELDS ROAD SIDES, WATE WAYS,
OPEN LANDS AND ALSO IN RIVER PALAR.
 DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY
ENVT BY SUPREME COURTS

• NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA (JUDGEMENT DATED 18/10/2000 W.P NO. 319/1994)- THIS
CASE WAS FILED BY THE GOVT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SARDARSAROVAR DAM ACROSS THE
NARMADA RIVER. THIS HAS TAKEN AS AN EFFECTIVE MEASURE TO RELIEF THE PEOPLE FROM THE DRINKING
WATER PROBLEM.
• T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT HELD THAT RIGHT TO LIFE
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA INCLUDES A RIGHT TO AN ENVIRONMENT
ADEQUATE FOR HEALTH AND WELL BEING . IN THIS CASE IT WAS ALLEGED THAT MINING ACTIVITIES WERE
ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE FLORA AND FAUNA IN AN AROUND KUDERMUKH NATIONAL PARK, A PART OF
WESTERN GHATS.
• RAMJI PATEL VS. NAGRIK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK MANCH, THE SUPREME COURT DREW A NEXUS
BETWEEN THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT HELD THAT ANY
DISTURBANCE OF THE BASIC ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NAMELY AIR, WATER AND SOIL WHICH ARE
NECESSARY FOR LIFE WOULD BE HAZARDOUS TO LIFE WITH IN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
• STATE OF M.P V. KEDIA LEATHER & LIQUOR LTD(2003) 7 SCC 389 , SUPREME COURT HELD THAT “
ENVIRONMENTAL, AIR AND WATER POLLUTION AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE ASSURED BY
ARITCLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HYGENIC ENVIRONMENT IS THE INTEGRAL FACET OF HEALTHY
LIFE. RIGHT TO LIFE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY BECOMES ILLUSORY IN THE ABSENCE OF HUMANE AND HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT.
 CONLUSION
HENCE FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISCUSSIONS IT IS
CRYSTAL CLEAR AND APPARENT ON THE PART OF OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT COURT HAS UTILISED JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM IN SEVERAL WAYS TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH INTERPRETING THE ARTICLE 21
WITH ARTICLE 32 TO DELIVER THE REMARKABLE
JUDGEMENTS AS OF NOW AND ALSO CREATED A BENCH
MARK FOR THE FUTURE CASES TOO.