Abstract
The Constitution of India is the sole protector of the citizens. It is considered one of the most powerful laws in the country, and it provides for the fundamental needs and rights of the citizens. Every legitimate works or rights are taken from this Guardian authority. Therefore, conservation and protection of the environment are the fundamental duties and rights enshrined for every citizen of this country to safeguard and protect its existence for future endeavours. The right to have a clean environment is enshrined as an implicit part of Article 21, thereby denoting the Fundamental rights of human beings. India has the authority to improve and protect the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife.[1] Citizens of India are responsible for enhancing and protecting the natural environment and partaking in consideration for living beings.[2] It indicates that Part III, DPSP, and the Fundamental Duties are provided to look after the well-being of the citizens. This paper dives into the understanding of judicial pronouncements and how the judiciary takes the initiative to safeguard and conserve the environment and uplift the living standard of the citizens. This study solely relies on the doctrinal method of the research.
Keywords: Constitution; Protection; Conservation; Environment; Judiciary
Introduction
Defining an environment is a hard task. In India’s Constitution, the word ‘environment’ is mentioned, but it is not defined. In common parlance, the environment means the surroundings where we live. The harmonious living of people on this planet is shaped by the profound environment. Both the environment and the living beings interplay to sustain the environment. Humans, being the most advanced form of living beings, exist with the necessities made by nature for their livelihood. Humans are the friends of nature. To understand the legal terminology, the word ‘environment’ is defined under section 2(a) of the EPA, 1986. The word ‘environment’ tells about air, land, and water and their relationship among them and with human beings.[3] The reason behind defining the environment is to admit the relationship between nature and human beings. Due to the advancement of science and technology, industry has become the core instrument to develop the living style of human mankind, thereby the population explosion creates an environment more compressed and polluted. Then, the problem of pollution in the environment escalates to a larger extent, which impacts the health and existence of mankind.
This leads to the felling of trees to accommodate the people for their existence. Due to this, a large extent of forests has become the target of every living being to clear the area for their livelihood. Now we see deforestation leading to climate change and Global warming affecting the health and lives of the people. Considering changes in the physical norms of the environment, India’s Constitution apprises the fundamental significance of conserving and protecting the environment. The right to have a good life and the Right to sustain a clean or healthy environment are enshrined as an implicit part of Art. 21 of India’s Constitution. Moreover, various provisions are mentioned under the discipline of Fundamental Rights, DPSP, and Fundamental responsibility offered to the citizens of India, guaranteed by India’s Constitution. It entails that every citizen in the country has a right to a healthy life and a clean atmosphere or environment. In recent challenges, heat wave is the most challenging issue that has arisen from Global Warming globally. Therefore, the principle of Sustainable environment or development is the cardinal character to encourage and appreciate a life of good dignity.
Rights of the Citizens and Environmental Protection
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, which talk right to equality, the freedom of speech and expression, and the right to a good life and personal liberty, show the inner objectives of Principle 1, which the Stockholm Declaration guaranteed. The State has to provide
to any citizen or person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws in the supreme territory of India.[4] In the case of Virandar Guar v. State of Haryana[5], the country’s highest court applied Principle 1, the Stockholm Declaration, and held that “Article 21 protects the right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its ambit, including their right to life with human dignity, encompasses within its ambit the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological balance, free from pollution of air and water, and sanitation without which life can’t be enjoyed. Any counteracts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental ecology, air, water, pollution etc. It should be regarded as amounting to a violation of Article 21. Therefore, a hygienic environment is an integral facet of the right to a healthy life, and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment.”
In one of the Supreme Court Cases, the highest court of the country held that “The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person’s right to fresh air, clean water, and a pollution-free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of a clean environment. Our legal system, having been founded on the British common Law, the right of the person to a polluted environment is a part of basic jurisprudence of the land.”[6]
The Highest Court of the Country in T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India[7] held that “the right to life guaranteed in 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 the mining activity adversely affected the flora and fauna in and around Kudremukh National Park, a part of West Ghats.”
In the State of MP v. Kedia Leather &liquor Ltd[8], the Highest Court of the Country held that “Environmental, ecological air and water pollution amount to a violation of the right to life assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A hygienic environment is an integral facet of a healthy life. The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory without a humane and healthy environment.”
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Others[9], the Highest Court of the Country held that “Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India… It is a matter of great concern that even after half a century of freedom, water is not available to all citizens even for their basic drinking necessity, violating human rights resolution of the U.N.O. and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Apart from Article 21, the State has the responsibility to improve and protect the environment and safeguard the country’s forests and wildlife.[10] Everyone in the country has the duty imposed by the Fundamental Duties of the Country to enhance and protect the natural environment and to have consideration for living beings.[11] These are given under the Constitution of India, enshrined as Part III and Part IVA to the citizens. In the case of M. K. Janardhanam v. The District Collector, Tiruvallur[12], the Court observed that “Under Article 51A(g), it is the fundamental duty of every one of the citizens of this country to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, all other water resources, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The petitioner should be complimented for discharging his constitutional obligation by bringing to the notice of this Court at the risk of his personal safety the unimaginable aggression on natural resources by unscrupulous elements.” The provisions of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policies are supplementary and complementary to each other.[13]
In several environmental cases[14], the Courts have been directed by Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal[15], the Supreme Court pointed out that whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Articles 48 A and 51A(g) of the Constitution. The court observed:
“When the Court is called Upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, (Articles 48-A and 51A(g) in this case), the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority. The least the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may always give necessary directions. However, the Court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the Court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority”.
[1]INDIA CONST. art. 48A.
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g).
[3] The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, S 2(a), No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[5](1995) 2 SCC 577.
[6] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
[7] (1997) 2 SCC 267.
[8] AIR 2003 SC 3236.
[9] AIR 2000 SC 3751.
[10] Supra note 1.
[11] Supra note 2.
[12] (1997) 2 SCC 87.
[13] Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212 .
[14] See e.g., MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187.
[15] AIR 1987 SC 1109.