Constitutional Provisions for

Environmental Protection in India

Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The preamble of the constitution and environment protection
 Legislative powers and matters of environmental protection
o International Environmental Agreements
 Obligation of State and Environmental Protection
 Obligation of citizens and environmental protection
 Right to life and Environment Protection
 Right To Equality and Environmental Protection
 Freedom of Speech and Expression and Environment
 Freedom of Trade and Commerce and Environmental Protection
 Role of the Supreme Court in environmental protection
o
 Polluter Pays Principle
 Precautionary Principle
 The doctrine of Public trust
 Sustainable Development
 Conclusion

Introduction
A rapid increase in global warming, deforestation, air, water and other forms
of pollution is posing a great threat to the environment and its living beings.
The degradation of the environment through a plethora of activities carried on
by individuals is detrimental to the health of all the living beings, including
human beings, plants and animals.

Fundamental status has been given to the concept of protecting the

environment as it is essential to promote human health to have a healthy
environment and affords a right to a healthy environment to all. Preserving
the environment protects the health of every individual and a healthy
individual promotes the development of the environment which is the need of
the hour.

To live in an environment which provides a pollution free atmosphere is not

only a basic human right but also enhances human dignity. Principle of
sustainable development is one such approach which if followed can fulfil the
basic human right of having a dignified life.

To know more about the scope of constitutional provisions for environmental

protection in India in brief, please refer to the video below:
Law acts as a means of regularizing the human conduct and provides the
smooth functioning of society. Since the word ‘Environment’ did not find its
existence in the Indian Constitution, it became essential to insert provisions in
the constitution as it is the supreme law of the land and such insertion thus,
would prove to be fruitful to protect the environment from exploitation.

The preamble of the constitution and

environment protection
The Preamble of Indian Constitution begins by stating that people of India
solemnly resolve to constitute India into a socialist country. This
indicates that our Constitution affords us with the socialist pattern of society.
Thus, aiming at dealing with and solving social problems first, rather than
concentrating on individual problems. Here, what is in the interest of the public
is of utmost importance.

Presence of pollutants in the atmosphere in excess of the prescribed limit is

one of the major social issues to be given due regard. It is not only exploiting
the health of living beings but is also degrading the quality of the environment
in each day.

The basic aim of Preamble is socialism and it is the responsibility of the state
to fulfil this by taking stringent measures to make the environment free from
all forms of pollution. The obligation of the state further includes providing not
only a pollution free environment but also a decent standard of living to all
living beings.

All the citizens of India intend to secure freedom which also includes securing
justice. Justice can be interpreted and sought in many forms. Thus, citizens
have a right to environmental justice. Increasing degradation of the
environment is posing a great threat to the lives of living beings and hence,
protecting the environment is becoming a crucial in each day of life because
ignoring it would pose a serious threat to the environment at large.

The state has the duty to comply with all the provisions and since India is
declared to be the Democratic Republic, the citizens of this country hold a
very essential right to have looked upon the conduct of the state and provisions
being taken by the government from time to time to restore the environment.

Legislative powers and matters of environmental

protection
Under the Indian Constitution, there are three types of lists, namely- Union,
state and concurrent.

Powers of the government are shared at the state and union level. Central
government deals with the matters of union list, where state government
deals with the matters of state list. Thus, the exclusive power to legislate the
matters of union list, which is the list I, is with the Parliament. State
list which is the list II covers matters like, sanitation, the health of the public,
drainage, supply of clean water etc. It covers matters relating to defence,
military, atomic energy, regulation of oil fields, air traffic etc.

Power of dealing with the matters of the concurrent list (list III) is shared
between both the state and central government. It covers matters like
protection of forests, wildlife, conserving mines, population control etc. But in
the instance of conflict, the decision of the central government prevails.

The legislative and administrative relations between the central and the state
government are specifically dealt in with the part XI of the Constitution. The
power to make rules for the whole country is with the Parliament of the
country, while for that of the state lies with the state government of every
state.

In an instance of passing state laws subsequent to the central laws, for it to

prevail, requires a Presidential assent first as in accordance with Article 254.

In the situation of national emergency, Parliament has the power to legislate

the state subjects also. The division of these legislative powers is essential to
make provisions which can deal with environmental problems.

There are various projects taken up by the state to develop the environment
but they might pose a serious threat to the environment. In such
circumstances there is always a conflict between development and
environment protection and such matters are dealt through the Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA). This has also been recognized by the planning
commission.

International Environmental Agreements

A plethora of international agreements dealing with environmental protection
have been made and India has been a signatory to it. Because at
the Stockholm declaration in 1972, it was held that the world has one
environment. India being a signatory to such international pacts is under an
obligation to translate those provisions and follow them in the country. This
has been clearly stated in Article 51(c) of the Indian constitution that state
shall foster respect for international law and the obligations of the treaties.
Another essential provision dealing in protecting the environment is Article
253 of the Constitution which empowers the Parliament of our country to
make laws which can be applicable to the whole or any territory of the country
for implementing any agreement or convention signed with the other country
or countries.

Parliament can further legislate to implement decisions taken at any

conference on an international level. Any provision made in the context of
environmental protection in accordance with Article 253 read with articles 13
and 14 cannot be questioned before the court of law on the grounds of no
legislative competence.

With the use of this power, it is pertinent to know that Parliament has
enacted Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, and
Environment Protection Act, 1986. It has been clearly stated in the
Preamble of these acts that the purpose of their enactment was to implement
the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, held at Stockholm in the year 1972.

In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the supreme court

held that it is essential to incorporate the international customary laws in the
municipal laws, provided they are not contrary to them. It is an accepted
principle of law. Thus, it was considered essential to follow international laws
by the domestic courts of law.

Obligation of State and Environmental Protection

The authorities are under the obligation to follow the law and regularize the
conduct for the benefit of the people who have elected them. Article 47 puts
an obligation on the state that it shall regard the raising level of nutrition and
standard of living of its people. Also, the primary duty of the state shall be to
improve public health. It is the responsibility of the state to prohibit except for
medicinal purposes, the consumption of alcohol and drugs which can be
injurious to the health of the living beings and pose a great threat to their
lives.

From the word “responsibility” it can be interpreted that state shall take
effective, adequate and necessary steps to improve the health and standard
of living of all and promote awareness in the context of environmental
protection. In the environment development projects cannot be taken up by
the individuals which harm society as a whole. Thus, the state needs to keep
a stringent check on these activities and projects.

There have been various reasons due to which level of pollution in the
environment is constantly increasing. For eg., water pollution is commonly
caused due to the draining of impure water in the rivers and which not only
pollutes the natural resource of the country but affects the health of citizens.
This lead to the urgent need of making provisions to obligate the state to
preserve and protect the environment.

In the case of Hamid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the state was
negligent to supply water from the handpumps, colossal damage was caused
to the citizens, which affected their health massively. Hence, due to this gross
negligence on the part of the state, it was held that the state failed to perform
its basic duty.

In the year 1976, the constitution was amended. With this

amendment, Article 48-A was inserted in the constitution with the aim to
afford better provisions so as to preserve and protect the environment. The
provision of this article imposes the duty on the state to protect and improve
the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. The
word “Environment” has been interpreted widely in this article. The state shall
not only play a role of being protectionists but also enact adequate measures
for improvement of the environment.

Every natural resource is interconnected with other natural resources of this

country. Forests are directly linked with providing pollution-free air, helps in
reducing global warming and is also connected with water resources. They help
in maintaining the ecological balance. Thus, this resource is crucial and hence,
its protection is equally important to avoid atmospheric pollution. Hence, the
specific insertion of this section is justified.

Obligation of citizens and environmental

protection
The duties of the state in protecting the environment are basically the rights
of the citizens. The concept of rights and duties respectively, co-exist. They
are interconnected. If citizens have the right to a decent standard of living and
a pollution free environment, then at the same time they are obliged to protect
it and not carry on activities which prove to be dangerous for the society at
large and all other living beings.

The concept of rights was quite prevalent in comparison to the concept of

duties prior to the 42nd amendment of the constitution. More importance was
attached to rights than duties by the supreme law of the land. But the drafters
of the constitution felt that it is necessary to shoulder the burden of protecting
environment between both the state and the citizens. Also, citizens were more
concerned with their rights and started neglecting their duties. Thus, part IV–
A was inserted by The Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act,1976.
Part IV-A of the constitution deals with Fundamental Duties. Article 51-
A(g) specifically deals with the fundamental duty of the citizens to protect and
improve the natural environment which includes forests, rivers, lakes, wildlife
and to have compassion for living creatures. Like the duty of the state, it is
the duty of all the citizens of not only protecting the environment but also
taking measures which are adequate enough to improve the environment.

Nature has gifted us with the resources and a pollution free environment and
thus, this casts a duty upon the citizens to keep these resources in the same
condition for the future generations. Hence, the principle of intergenerational
equity plays a major role in environmental protection by sustainable use of
natural resources.

In Kinkeri Devi v. State, Himachal High Court that in Article 48-A and
Article 51-A(g) it was held that it is both constitutional pointer to the state
and the constitutional duty of the citizens not only protect the environment
but also improve it and to preserve and safeguard the forests, the flora and
the fauna, the rivers and the lakes and all other water resources of the country.

The negligence to abide by the pointer or perform the duty is nothing basically
the straight betrayal of the fundamental law of the land.

In the case of betrayal, the courts cannot remain a silent spectator. A court
can intervene at any time to make the implementation of the provisions by
issuing writs, orders and directions as it thinks fit and necessary.

In L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, the municipality of Jaipur

was being negligent in carrying on its basic duty of maintaining the hygiene of
the state. This caused acute sanitation problem thereby leading to the to have
hazardous effects on the lives of the people of the state. Mr Koolwal along with
other residents moved an application under article 226 of the Indian
constitution before the high court highlighting the gross negligence of the
municipality.

While construing the true scope of Article 51-A in this case the court
explained that this article is not only a duty but is aright created in favour of
the citizens to have the locus standing to move to the court to have a check
on the conduct of the state activities, whether the authorities are performing
their duties or not in accordance with the fundamental law of the land. The
right to move to the court is granted to citizens for the proper enforcement of
the state’s duties and of their relevant departments, local bodies etc.

Being negligent in maintaining hygiene and sanitation standards slowly affects

the lives of living beings and poisons the environment at large. This infringes
the fundamental right of life of the citizen as provided under article 21, which
also extends to have a decent standard of living and a clean and safe
environment and thus, citizens protecting their fundamental right to life from
being infringed is justified. Thus, the court directed the municipality to remove
the dirt and all the filthy material which was posing a great threat to the lives
and health of the people.

In another case of Goa Foundation v. the State of Goa, the petitioner was
a society registered under the rules relating to registration of societies and its
members were the citizens of India who had a fundamental duty to protect
and improve the environment, lakes, forests, rivers and have compassion for
living creatures as laid down under article 51-A . The question of whether the
society had locus standi to move to the court or not was raised before the
court.

The answer to this question was given in a very affirmative manner by the
court and was held that the society had the same fundamental duty. Petitioner
was held to have a locus standi to move to the court to not only prevent
degradation of our ecology but also form and implement provisions for the
purpose of rehabilitating the ecology thereby maintaining ecological balance.

Public interest litigation was filed before the high court by five persons, who
were residents of a specific area, in the case of Sitaram Champaran V. State
of Bihar to seek the directions of the court for the closure of the tyre
retreading plant, in the interest of public health. This plant was situated in the
residential area and was emitting carbon dioxide along with other obnoxious
gases causing harm to the environment. The respondents were directed to
wind up the plant in the interest of environmental protection and were
considered a fundamental duty under Article 51-A.

Right to life and Environment Protection

Article 21 of the constitution provides for the fundamental right of life. It
states that no person shall be deprived of his right to life or personal liberty
except in accordance with procedures established by law. The words “except
in accordance with procedures established by law” can be interpreted to mean
that this provision is subject to exception and is regulated by law which varies
from case to case.

Since the provision begins with the word ‘no’ that is the reason it has been
given a negative impact. But post-Maneka period this provision has been given
a positive interpretation and positively casts a duty on the state to enforce the
due implementation of this law.

Right to life includes the right to have a dignified life and also the bare
necessities of life like food, shelter, clean water and clothes. The right to live
extends to having a decent and clean environment in which individuals can live
safely without any threat to their lives. An environment shall be free from
diseases and all sorts of infections.
This is crucial because the right to life can be fulfilled only when one lives in a
clean, safe and disease-free environment, otherwise granting such right would
prove to be meaningless. This aspect of Article 21 has been evidently
discussed in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra,
Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the petitioner along with the
other citizens wrote to the supreme court expressing their views against the
progressive mining which denuded the Mussoorie hills of trees and forests and
soil erosion. This lead to having an adverse effect on the environment and
resulted in landslides along with blockage of underground water channels.

The registry was ordered by the Hon’ble supreme court to consider this letter
as a writ filed under article 32 of the Constitution.

An expert committee was appointed in this behalf by the Supreme Court to

advise the Hon’ble court with some technical issue. On the basis of the report
provided by the expert committee, the court provided the limestone quarries
to be closed because it was infringing the right to life and personal liberty.
Quarrying operations lead to ecological degradation and air and water
pollution, which affected the lives of the people to a great extent.

In L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, Rajasthan High Court held
that maintaining the quality of the environment, sanitation and health is
covered under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. Because non-
compliance to do so can adversely affect the lives of many citizens and slow
poisoning along with reducing the life of a citizen.

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, it was held that the duty of the state
is to take adequate and effective steps for the enforcement and protection of
Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21, 48-A and 51-A(g).

In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, due to stone crushing activities in and

around Delhi was causing a huge problem of pollution in the environment. The
court was conscious of the inevitable consequences and the ecological
problems caused due to the industrial activities in the country. In the name of
environmental development, it cannot be permitted to degrade the quality of
the ecology and increase different forms of pollution to the extent that it
becomes a health hazard to the lives of all the citizens. It was further held that
citizens have a right to fresh air and have a pollution-free environment in which
they live.

Further, the scope of article 21 was broadened by the judiciary to include

under its purview the right to livelihood as well. It includes the right of citizens
to earn their livelihood along with the right to life. The wider interpretation of
this article has proved to be beneficial in keeping a strict check on the conduct
and actions of the government in the context of measures taken by the
authorities to protect the environment. It is also beneficial in keeping a check
on the activities of the state which can have a massive impact on the
environment, health of the individuals and threat to the livelihood of poor.

Indian judiciary has been very conscious while dealing with the matters of
development and the environment protection to avoid the conflict between the
two aspects.

In the famous Taj Mahal Case, ample of industries near Taj Trapezium
Zone were using coke and coal as an industrial fuel. These industries were
ordered to be relocated to an alternative site as provided under Agra Master
Plan. The rights and duties of the workmen in the industries were also specified
by the court following the principle of sustainable development.

Right To Equality and Environmental Protection

Equality before the law and equal protection of the law has been granted
under article 14 of the Constitution. This fundamental right impliedly casts a
duty upon the state to be fair while taking actions in regard to environmental
protection and thus, cannot infringe article 14. In cases of exercise of arbitrary
powers on behalf of the state authorities, the judiciary has played a strict role
in disallowing the arbitrary sanction. Use of discretionary powers without
measuring the interest of the public violates the fundamental right of equality
of the people.

In Bangalore Medical Trust V. B.S Muddappa, an improvement scheme

was prepared by the City Improvement Board of Bangalore for the purpose of
extending the city. A low-level park was to be developed for which an area was
kept under this scheme. But under the direction of the chief minister the area
kept for the low-level park was to be converted into the civic amenity site
where the hospital was to be constructed. As soon as the construction began,
the residents moved to the high court.

The petition moved in by the residents was allowed by the high court. But in
appeal to the supreme court, the appellant contended that the power to allot
sites is completely a discretionary one and the developing authority has the
right to allow the site for making hospital rather than a park. And thus, the
diverted use of the land was justified in the eyes of the appellant.

By explaining the importance of open spaces and parks in the development of

urban areas, the supreme court rejected the appeal. The Hon’ble court further
stated that the open spaces, recreation, playing grounds and protection of
ecology are the matters of vital importance in the interest of public and crucial
for the development. Keeping open spaces for the interest of the public is
justified cannot be sold or given on lease to any private person solely for the
sake of monetary gains.
Freedom of Speech and Expression and
Environment
Right of speech and expression is a fundamental right expressly mentioned
in article 19(1)(a) of Part III of the Constitution. There have been a number
of cases where people have approached the court through the way of speech
and expressing themselves by writing letters like that in the case of Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar
Pradesh where they have expressed the violation of their right to have a clean
and safe environment and a right to livelihood.

In India, the media has been playing a crucial role in moulding the perception
of people in issues relating to the environment. Thus, Article 19(1)(a) is
interpreted to include the freedom of the press as well.

Freedom of Trade and Commerce and

Environmental Protection
All the citizens of India have a fundamental right to carry on any profession or
business, trade or commerce at any place within the territory of India
under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. But this is not an absolute right
and thus, has reasonable restrictions to it. Article 19(6) of the Constitution
lays down the reasonable restriction to this fundamental right to avoid the
environmental hazards.

The purpose is to avoid the ecological imbalance and degradation of the

atmosphere in the name of carrying on a trade, business, occupation or
carrying on any profession. Thus, in the name of business or profession, one
cannot cause harm to the environment.

In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 certain tanneries were
discharging effluents in the holy river Ganga which was causing water
pollution. Further, no primary treatment plant was being set up despite the
constant reminders. It was held by the court to stop the tanneries from working
because the effluents drained were ten times more noxious as compared to
the ordinary sewage water which flows into the river.

The court ordered while directing tanneries to be stopped from working which
have failed to take necessary steps as required for the primary treatment of
effluents from the industries. The court while passing this order contended
that, though the court is conscious about the unemployment that might usher
due to the closure of the tanneries but health, life and ecology holds
greater importance in the eyes of law.
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1994, it was directed by the Supreme Court
that the industries who did not comply or adhere to, with the prior direction of
the Hon’ble court regarding the installation of air pollution controlling system
should be closed. In this case, the supreme court laid down its greater
emphasis on Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

In S. Jagannath v. Union of India , sea beaches and sea coasts were

considered to be the gifts of nature, by the Hon’ble supreme court and any
such activity which pollutes these natural resources or the gift of nature cannot
be permitted to function. In this case, a shrimp farming culture industry by
modern method causing degradation to the ecosystem, discharge of polluting
effluents, polluting the potable ground-water and depletion of the plantation.
All of these activities were held to be violative of constitutional provisions and
other legislation dealing with environmental matters, by the court.

The court further held that before the installation of any such industry in a
fragile coastal area it is essential for them to necessarily pass the strict
environmental test. In other words, reasonable restrictions can be laid in
accordance with Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Role of the Supreme Court in environmental

protection
In lieu of the wide range of cases dealt by supreme court with regard to
environmental protection, a plethora of judgements have been passed which
have laid down various principles to be taken care of before indulging in any
activity which might pose a threat to the environment. Also, different aspects
of the environment have been highlighted by giving them immense importance
like natural resources. Air and water have been given the status of the gift of
nature and inalienable part of life.

While incorporating the important features to the fundamental right provided

in Article 21, certain principles were ascertained by the supreme court to be
necessarily ensured for the protection of the atmosphere, which are as
follows-

Polluter Pays Principle

The basic concept behind this principle is that “ if you make a mess, it becomes
your duty to clean it up”. The polluter pays principle does not lay emphasis on
the ‘fault’ rather on the curative approach to repair the ecological damage
caused by any person or group of persons. This principle was for the first time
referred to in the year 1972 in the OECD Guiding Principles concerning
International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies.
Further, this principle was also applied in the case of Vellore Citizens
Welfare Forum v. Union of India. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India and
Ors( Calcutta Tanneries Case), the polluter pays principle was applied
where industries were directed to be relocated and these industries were
ordered to pay 25% of the cost of the land.

The industries which did not pay the cost of the land and did not comply with
the direction of the court were further directed to be closed. The Hon’ble court
again restored to the directions which were earlier given in the Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.

Precautionary Principle
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration provides for the precautionary principle.
According to this. In order to protect the environment, it is essential to apply
the precautionary principle. This principle means that where there is a chance
of great threat or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific
certainty cannot be taken as a reason of not issuing the cost-effective
methods.

In M.C Mehta v. Union, popularly known as Taj Mahal Case, was another
judgement of the court passed on the basis of the precautionary principle. In
this case, public interest litigation was filed alleging the degradation of Taj
Mahal due to environmental pollution. Court referred the case to the expert
committee to seek technical on the matter. On the basis of the report of the
committee. This monument is a monument of international repute. The
industries located in the Taj Trapezium Zone(TTZ) were using coke/coal as
the industrial fuel, thus emitting effluents.

It was held by the court that, the Taj apart from being a cultural heritage, is
also an industry by itself and thus, it was directed to all the industries operating
in TTZ to use natural gas as a substitute for coke/coal as an industrial fuel and
if they cannot be restored to it for any reason, they must stop functioning and
they may relocate themselves as per directions of the .`The industries on the
relocation in new areas were to be given the incentives.

The doctrine of Public trust

This doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources which are required
for fulfilling the basic amenities of life like air, water etc hold great importance
to the people at large that it would be completely unjustified to make these
resources available to the private ownership. Since these resources are the
gift of nature that is why they should be made freely available to every
individual of the society irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine obliges
the government to protect resources for public use rather than being exploited
by a private person for making economic gains.
Thus, commercial use of natural resources is completely prohibited under this
doctrine. For the effective and optimum utilization of resources, this doctrine
mandates an affirmative action of the state authorities. Also, citizens are
empowered to question the authorities if resource management is ineffective.

In M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997, the state government granted a lease
of riparian forest land to a private company having a mote located at the bank
of river Beas, for commercial purposes. The hotel management was
intervening with the natural flow of the river by blocking the natural spill
channel of the river. This was questioned before the court through public
interest litigation. The court explained the scope of public trust doctrine and
observed that the doctrine rests on the primary principle that certain resources
like air, water, sea and forests have great importance to people and it would
be unjustified to make them subject to the private ownership.

Sustainable Development
The term sustainable development was for the first time used at the cocoyoc
declaration. Thereafter it received further impetus through the Stockholm
declaration where it was held that the world has just one environment and the
man is both the creator and moulder of the environment. Further, in the
Brundtland report, the definition of sustainable development was given
according to which it is the optimum utilization of resources for both the
present and future generations. Thus, intergenerational equity is a must.
Resources have to be protected for both the present and future generations.

Conclusion
This article begins with laying down emphasis on why environmental protection
is necessary, why did a need arise to protect the environment followed by the
causes of ecological degradation in the introductory part. Various reasons have
been considered to be a major factor in polluting the environment and affecting
the lives of the people and posing a great threat to other living beings of the
country.

In earlier times, the word “environment” was not specifically mentioned in the
Constitution and no specific provisions were laid down in the Constitution to
deal with the environmental hazards and to regulate the activities of the people
who thereby were contributing a huge part in degrading the quality of the
environment in the name of exercising their fundamental rights. The
constitution is the supreme law of the land. Thus, inserting the clauses to
specifically deal with the environmental issues would prove to be beneficial for
the environment.

42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution proved to be a solution for

this major health hazard. The provisions in the article begin with highlighting
the provisions from the base. Starting from the words democratic, socialist
and republic used in the Preamble to the Constitution and its connection
with the protection of the environment. Followed by duties of the state to
protect the environment as being an authority elected by the people they are
obliged to work for the people. Then the concept of rights and duties has been
dealt with, wherein the right of a citizen to have a healthy environment has
been mentioned and also the duties of citizens towards the environment in
which they live to protect and preserve it.

A number of landmark cases have been mentioned to make the concept even
more clear and how this plethora of judgements have clearly mentioned the
importance to protect this environment. It can also be concluded that the
supreme court has played a major role in laying down the environmental
jurisprudence. Also, fundamental rights are essential and cannot be infringed
upon but in accordance with the reasonable restrictions can be dealt with.

To have a healthy environment is so essential because a healthy environment

promotes good health of the greater number which leads to less diversion of
resources or spending of the huge amount of money on the treatment of the
people. In these situations, the poor suffer the most as they do not have
enough resources to afford their health issues. Moreover, healthy beings are
valuable assets for the country who when healthy and fit can contribute much
towards the economy and develop the nation thoroughly by paving a path of
progress, generating employment and increasing the GDP.