1.

Explain the dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution in

relation to environment with the help of case laws
केस कायद्यांच्या मदतीने पर्यावरणाच्या संदर्भात संविधानाच्या कलम 21
चे परिमाण स्पष्ट करा.

1. Dimensions of Right to Environment: Role of Indian Judiciary

Environmental rights are commonly understood to mean “the reformulation and

expansion of existing human rights and duties in the context of environmental
protection”. This view falls between simple application of existing rights to the
goal of environmental protection and recognition of a new full-fledged right to
environment. The Economic Social and Cultural Rights Committee has
addressed the right to a healthy environment. In General Comment 14 on the
highest attainable standard of health, the Committee established that: THE
RIGHT TO HEALTH EMBRACES A WIDE RANGE OF SOCIO-
ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT PROMOTE CONDITIONS IN WHICH
PEOPLE CAN LEAD A HEALTHY LIFE, AND EXTENDS TO THE
UNDERLYING DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH, SUCH AS FOOD AND
NUTRITION, HOUSING, ACCESS TO SAFE AND POTABLE WATER
AND ADEQUATE SANITATION, SAFE AND HEALTHY WORKING
CONDITIONS, AND A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT. It further elaborated
that the right should be interpreted as an ‘inclusive right extending not only to
timely and appropriate health care but also to the underlying determinants of
health, such as access to safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, an
adequate supply of safe food, nutrition and housing, healthy occupational and
environmental conditions’. Hence it can be see n that right to environment or
environment al rights includes various claims either linked with an existing
human right or emerged as an independent right. Some of the most important
dimensions of right to environment identified by Indian judiciary are as
follows:
Article 21 of Indian Constitution- A Mandate To Pollution Free Environment (legalserviceindia.com)

Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India (pib.gov.in)

Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India (pib.gov.in)

1. According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has received
liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597). Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life.
Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it. Right to
healthy environment is important attribute of right to live with human dignity. The right to
live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in
 the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly
known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues
relating to environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the
excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs.
Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free
environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. ARTICLE 21 : Article 21 of the constitution of India provides for the right to life and personal
liberty. It states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v
State of UP, also known as the Dehradun quarrying case, the Supreme Court of India has
held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people and
hence, the same should be stopped as being violative of Article 21.In this case, the Supreme
Court for the first time held that the right to wholesome environment is a part of right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, in the case of
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, again the apex court held that the right to get pollution free
water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this decision, the right to
pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of right to life and all the law
courts within the Indian territory were bound to follow the same. This laid down the
foundation of environmental litigation in India. Similarly, public health and ecology3 were
held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the constitution of a green bench was also
ordered by the Supreme Court. In the case of Ratlam Muncipality v Vardicharan, where the
problem of pollution was due to private polluters and haphazard town planning, it was held
by the Supreme Court that pollution free environment is an integral part of right to life
under Article 21

Case laws :
1. In Subhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar- (1991) 1 SCC 598, the Supreme Court held that
right to life is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution and it include the right
to 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 recourse to
Art.32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be
detrimental to life.

2. In M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India 1987 SCR (I) 819 (the Oleum Gas Leak case), the
Supreme Court established a new concept of managerial liability - 'absolute and non-
delegable' - for disasters arising from the storage of or use of hazardous materials from
their factories. The enterprise must ensure that no harm results to anyone irrespective of
the fact that it was negligent or not.

CONCLUSION
2. Connecting human rights and environment is a valuable sourcebook that explores the
uncharted territory that lies between environmental and human rights legislation. Human
beings can ensure fundamental equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment
that permits a life of dignity and well-being. There is an urgent need to formulate laws
keeping in mind the fact that those who pollute or destroy the natural environment are not
 just committing a crime against nature, but are violating human rights as well. Indeed, health
has seemed to be the subject that bridges gaps between the two fields of environmental
protection and human rights. The advancement of the relationship between human rights
and environment would enable incorporation of human rights principles within an
environmental scope, such as antidiscrimination standards, the need for social participation
and the protection of vulnerable groups
3. India faced its biggest environmental disaster in 1982. But then India
was not ready to face it as there were no definitive and absolute laws
to protect and preserve the environment. But since that incident, India
has come a long way in the field of Environment protection. In the past
38 years, an umbrella legislation, Environment (Protection) Act was
enacted, right to pollution-free environment was recognised as a
Fundamental Right under Article 21, various principles like Sustainable
Development were adopted and special tribunals were created for
dealing with environmental issues.

India’s progress in environmental law can be seen in the amount of work and
efficiency in the work done in Visakhapatnam to limit the damage caused by
the gas leak.

However, the fact that 6 out of the 10 most polluted cities are located in
India. This is a worrisome statistic. In my opinion, India has a strong
environmental law, however, the execution is not adequate. Building
unnecessary buildings, red-tapism and failure to control people from bursting
crackers are some of the examples which show the shortcomings in the
execution.

Environmental protection under the Indian

Constitution

Right to life under Article 21

History of Indian Judiciary shows that the 1980s was a period where the
Indian Judiciary became more liberal and very creative. In the case of Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985, the
importance of air and water as the most indispensable gift of nature for the
preservation of life was discussed. The judges did not expressly
discuss Article 48A or Art 21. Still, this case is considered as the start of
liberal interpretation of Article 21.
The Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991 held that
Article 21 includes the right to a wholesome environment. They followed the
liberal thinking which started in the Rural litigation case and had laid down
an expansive interpretation of the word “life” in Article 21 by including
environmental protection in Right to Life.

This position was again reaffirmed in Virender Gaur v. State of

Haryana,1994, where it was held that enjoyment of life and right to live with
dignity includes the protection and preservation of the environment and
without it, life could not be enjoyed.

It is important to understand what is the relation between the environment

and quality of Life. To understand this, some incidents have been discussed.

Effect on Human Lives

Enjoyment of a pollution-free environment is directly in relation to the quality
of life. As the environment, which includes natural resources, are essential
for a healthy life, any pollution or damage to the environment could have
adverse effects on human beings. This has been proven by various incidents
that changed the jurisprudence of environmental law in India.

Bhopal Gas tragedy

On the fateful night of December 2, 1982, India faced the biggest chemical
leak the world had ever seen. Methyl isocyanate, a highly toxic chemical,
leaked from the pesticide factory of Union Carbide India Limited made Bhopal
a gas chamber. It was the first and the biggest environmental disaster that
India has faced.

 The effect of Bhopal gas tragedy on the environment

30 tonnes of Methyl isocyanate was leaked in the air of Bhopal which led to
the death of 15,000 people and 6,00,000 people were adversely affected.
The effect was not limited to the affected people, their future generations
were also affected. Those who were affected way back in 1982, still to this
day, suffer from the effects of that hazardous chemical.

The chemical leak also affected the trees and the animals. Thousands of
animals died and the lands turned barren.

The factory was not demolished and some portions of the chemical still
remain in the abandoned factory which is contaminating the water that
people drink. The doctors till date have not been able to find an antidote to
cure the affected people.
  Legal implications
A case was filed by the Union of India claiming damages on behalf of the
affected people, under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claim)
Act, 1985 from Union Carbide Indian Limited for the lives lost and the
damage to the environment. Both the Union of India and UCIL filed separate
appeals against the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya
Pradesh High Court reduced the amount of damages from 350 Million to 250
Million as interim compensation. There was an out of the court
settlement according to which UCIL had to pay $470 million for damages
caused. However, the court laid down certain guidelines.

1. Families of the dead were to be granted Rs.1,00,000- 3,00,000.

2. Fully or practically disabled were to be granted Rs. 50,000-
5,00,000.

Oleum Gas leak (M.C. Mehta vs Union of India, 1986)

Shriram Industries was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances
and was located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar, Delhi. There was
a leakage of oleum gas because of which one person died and several people
were hospitalized. This incident was more feared because it took place after
only 1 year of the Bhopal Gas tragedy. The legal implications of this case will
be discussed in the section of ‘liability’.

Visakhapatnam gas leak

During the unprecedented times of lockdown, India faced another big
setback on 7th May, 2020, when a gas named styrene leaked from the LG
Polymers Private ltd. plant located in Visakhapatnam and took 11 lives. 400
people were hospitalized. The gas also took the life of animals.

National Disaster Response Force

The National Disaster Response Force helped in evacuating over 1200
families in the Visakhapatnam gas leak.

NDRF was established under Section 44(1) of The Disaster Management Act,
2005. It has been constituted for the purpose of protecting and responding to
natural and man-made disasters. There are 12 Battalions with each Battalion
consisting of 1149 personnel.

NDRF is constituted on 3 levels. NDRF is the main body at the central

level. State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) is the main body at the state
level and according to Section 14 of The Disaster Management Act,
2005 every state mandatorily has to create SDRF. The 3 level is the District
level which consists of Police officers, Fire and Emergency Services, NGO’s.

These incidents show that any damage to the environment directly affects
human life, flora and fauna and therefore the right to a pollution-free
environment is essential for a quality and healthy life and should be included
in “life” under Article 21.