Does Right to Life include Right to a healthy environment?
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT
HEMANTH RAO
211029
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Constitution is one of the few constitutions in the world which recognizes environmental rights on the pedestal of fundamental rights and expects its citizen to reciprocate the same by imposing duties on them to protect the same. The Indian judiciary has widened the ambit of Article 211 to include other ancillary rights with the aim of guaranteeing minimum human rights to Indians. It begin with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2, where the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 to have the widest possible amplitude. Thus, the Indian judiciary has interpreted Article 21 so as to bring under its ambit many rights which were originally not guaranteed by the Indian constitution like the Right to clean environment3, Right to food4, Right to livelihood5, Right to privacy6, Right to legal aid7, Right to fair and speedy trial8. In this paper, the author will discuss the evolution of Right to clean environment and the way it has been interpreted by the judiciary to protect and promote sustainable environmental development. In the due course the author will analyze case laws which have helped in widening the ambit of Article 21 to include the Right to clean environment and other ancillary rights which accrue out of such interpretation.
HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE
The United Nations Conference on Human Environment was held at Stockholm in June, 1972. The Stockholm Conference emphasised the importance of environmental laws and called upon the states for strict enforcement of the same. India was a signatory to the Stockholm conference and hence, it enacted several laws to comply with it. The laws enacted were the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1981, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act 1974. Environmental degradation can endanger humans, birds and animals and the entire ecosystem which exists in a geographical area. Therefore, the right to life has been interpreted broadly to
1 2
Constitution of India, 1950 AIR 1978 SC 597 3 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 4 Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630 5 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 6 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264 7 M.H. Haskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548 8 Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
includes, inter alia, to include right to good environment. In India, these rights have been given a constitutional status. The right to healthy environment has been recognized, directly or indirectly, through various judgements of the Indian Courts. Any arbitrary act which deprives the life or personal liberty without following the due process of law would be violative of Article 21 of the Indian constitution.9
RIGHT TO CLEAN ENVIRONMENT
The Right to life under the Indian constitution does not mean mere animal existence but a life of dignity.10 This view as been often observed by the court in a catena of judgements and the courts have held the Right to life to include Right to clean environment. For instance, in Chetriya Pradushan Mukti Sngarsh samiti v State of UP11, the Court observed that, Every citizen has fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated in Art 21 of the constitution In M.C. Mehta v UOI12, the petitioner alleged that industries on the banks of Ganga were polluting the river. The Court issued directions to close the industries which were polluting the river and observed that Time has now come to suspend all mining in the above Area(Aravalli Hills) on Sustainable Development Principle which is part of Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.. Thus in MC Mehta, the court recognized the international principle of sustainable development to be part of Article 21. This view was reiterated in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors13, where the Supreme Court pointed out that development and ecology cannot be seen as opposed to each other but have to be interpreted harmoniously. The Supreme Court discussed the origin and evolution of sustainable development through the years discussing the Brundtland Report and Rio Declaration and held that sustainable development is a part of international customary law. The SC also held "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Polluter Pays to be essential features of "Sustainable Development". The Supreme Court once again in ND Jayal v Union of India14held,
9 10 11 12 13 14
JT 2003 Suppl 2 SC 1, 2003 (7) SCALE 54, (2004) 9 SCC 362
the adherence of sustainable development principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development and the concept of 'sustainable development' is to be treated an integral part of 'life' under Article 21. Another landmark case in this regard is Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar15, where the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through a PIL alleging that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company are polluting the river Bokaro by discharging slurry from their washeries into the river and the concerned agencies are indifferent to the cause. The Court dismissing the petition due to lack of evidence held that the 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. Further, the Court held that a petition under Article 21 which invokes the writ jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked by social workers and journalists.16 In Murli S. Deora vs. Union of India17, the issue before the court was whether smoking in public places should be banned. The Court discussed the importance of a clean environment and pollution free air under Article 21 and held that allowing smoking in public places would indirectly deprive the non-smokers of their Right to life and hence, banned smoking in public places. Further, in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP18, also known as the Dehradun quarrying case, the Supreme Court of India has held that pollution resulting from the quarry activities affect the health and safety of citizens and hence, it should be banned as it is violative of Article 21.
15 16 17 18
AIR 1991 SC 420 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420, 4
