Environmental Jurisprudence: Expanding the scope of Article 21 and sustainable development

Abstract

Indian environmental jurisprudence has emerged as one of the most dynamic areas of constitutional law, anchored in the creative interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The judiciary has progressively widened the meaning of the right to life to include the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

 This article traces the evolution of environmental protection in India, beginning with its cultural and philosophical roots in the Vedic era, moving through colonial exploitation, and culminating in post-independence constitutionalism and judicial activism. Landmark decisions such as M.C. Mehta v Union of India, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India, and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India have introduced doctrines of precaution, polluter pays, public trust, and intergenerational equity. Sustainable development has been elevated to a constitutional principle, balancing economic progress with ecological protection. The article also surveys statutory developments, including the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act 2016, and explores how contemporary challenges such as climate change and air pollution are pushing jurisprudence towards new horizons.

Introduction

The interdependence of human life and the natural environment have been recognised throughout Indian civilisation. Ancient texts such as the Rigveda and Atharvaveda valued the earth as a mother goddess and trees as divine embodiments.

Yet, with the acceleration of industrialisation and urbanisation in the twentieth century, environmental degradation became a defining concern of modern India. Air and water pollution, deforestation, and unregulated exploitation of natural resources threatened not only ecological balance but also the dignity and survival of communities.

While the Constitution of India originally did not provide an explicit environmental right, judicial activism transformed Article 21 into a constitutional safeguard for environmental protection. By interpreting the “right to life” to include clean air, potable water, and ecological stability, the Supreme Court bridged statutory gaps and constitutionalised environmental justice. This has been achieved in concurrence with Directive Principles such as Article 48A, mandating the State to protect and improve the environment, and Fundamental Duties under Article 51A(g), requiring every citizen to safeguard forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.

Historical Background of Environmental Protection in India

Environmental consciousness in India pre-exists modern law. During the Vedic era, nature was considered sacred. Plants such as neem, peepal, and Tulsi were worshipped as Vriksha Devta, and forests were protected as sites of spiritual and material sustenance.

The Atharvaveda described the earth as the “Mother Goddess,” reflecting a philosophy of stewardship and gratitude towards the environment. The post-Vedic period continued this ethos, with the Ramayana and Mahabharata depicting forests as integral to human life and prescribing moral obligations to preserve them. Kautilya’s Arthashastra laid down systematic rules for forest management, including penalties for illegal felling of trees.

During the medieval era, Islamic traditions reinforced environmental stewardship, warning that destruction of nature was contrary to divine command. Emperor Ashoka, even earlier in the Mauryan period, had already prohibited unnecessary burning of forests and wanton killing of animals, illustrating that ecological governance was embedded in statecraft.

The colonial era, however, marked a rupture. The British administration reduced forests and rivers to mere commercial assets, enacting the Indian Forest Act 1865 and subsequent laws that prioritised extraction over conservation. Forests were declared state property, marginalising local communities who had traditionally lived in symbiosis with nature.

In the post-independence period, statutory environmental protection developed gradually. The Factories Act 1948 contained provisions on waste disposal. The River Boards Act 1956 and the Insecticides Act 1968 aimed at regulating water and chemical safety. The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the Water Act 1974, the Air Act 1981, and the Environment Protection Act 1986 formed the backbone of environmental regulation. Later statutes such as the Biological Diversity Act 2002, the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act 2016 expanded the legal regime. Yet, these statutes became truly effective only through judicial interpretation and enforcement.

Constitutional Foundations and Judicial Expansion

The judiciary has relied on constitutional provisions to expand environmental rights. Article 14, guaranteeing equality before law, has been invoked to strike down arbitrary state decisions that endangered ecological balance. For instance, in State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products AIR 1996 SC 149, the Court held that government decisions must respect ecological considerations. Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the freedom of trade, has been restricted when business activities harm public health, as in Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 559.

Most significantly, Article 21 has been transformed into the foundation of environmental jurisprudence. In Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar [1991] 1 SCC 598, the Court held that the right to life includes the right to pollution-free water and air. In the Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta v Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 395), the Court introduced the doctrine of absolute liability, declaring hazardous industries strictly responsible for harm caused, regardless of negligence. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of U.P. AIR 1986 SC 652, the Court ordered closure of limestone quarries in Dehradun, prioritising ecological balance over economic interests.

Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties reinforce this constitutional mandate. Article 47 obliges the State to improve public health, while Article 48A makes environmental protection a constitutional obligation. Article 51A(g) places a duty upon every citizen to protect nature. The Supreme Court has harmonised these provisions with fundamental rights, holding that environmental protection is both a state duty and a civic responsibility.

Doctrinal Contributions of the Judiciary

Indian courts have developed a sophisticated set of doctrines to enforce environmental rights under Article 21.

The Precautionary Principle was adopted in A.P. Pollution Control Board v M.V. Nayudu [1999] 2 SCC 718, requiring preventive action even in cases of scientific uncertainty. The Polluter Pays Principle, recognised in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India [1996] 3 SCC 212, placed the cost of pollution remediation upon industries. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647, both principles were declared part of the law of the land, influenced by Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration 1992.

The Public Trust Doctrine was articulated in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath [1997] 1 SCC 388, where the Court held that natural resources are held by the State in trust for the people. Similarly, the principle of Intergenerational Equity, recognised in State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products [1995] 6 SCC 363, requires present generations to preserve resources for future generations.

An important innovation has been the special burden of proof in environmental cases, first highlighted in Vellore Citizens. Here the Court held that the onus lies on the developer or industrialist to prove that their activity is environmentally benign, reversing the traditional evidentiary burden.

These doctrines, together with the Court’s recognition of absolute liability in hazardous industries, have placed India at the forefront of global environmental jurisprudence.

Sustainable Development as a Constitutional Principle

Sustainable development was explicitly recognised as a constitutional doctrine in Vellore Citizens. The Court harmonised Articles 21, 47, 48A, and 51A(g), declaring that economic growth must not come at the expense of ecological stability. The principle was reaffirmed in Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India [2000] 10 SCC 664, where the Court allowed construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam but imposed strict environmental safeguards. Similarly, in N.D. Jayal v Union of India [2004] 9 SCC 362, the Court emphasised that developmental projects must undergo rigorous environmental assessments.

By elevating sustainable development to constitutional status, the judiciary has ensured that environmental protection is not merely aspirational but binding upon state policy.

Recent Developments and Emerging Challenges

In recent decades, environmental jurisprudence has been strengthened by institutional reforms. The establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under the 2010 Act provided a specialised forum for speedy environmental adjudication. The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act 2016 sought to address ecological restoration through statutory mechanisms.

Contemporary challenges, however, continue to test judicial capacity. Air pollution in Delhi-NCR, aggravated by stubble burning, vehicular emissions, and industrial activity, has drawn continuous intervention by the Supreme Court and the NGT. Climate change, though not yet explicitly framed as a fundamental right in India, is increasingly shaping judicial discourse. Courts have begun to recognise the right to be free from climate harm as implicit in Article 21, following global jurisprudence.

The Indian judiciary’s activism has sometimes drawn criticism for transgressing the doctrine of separation of powers. Yet, as commentators note, judicial intervention became necessary because legislative and executive organs often failed to discharge their constitutional duties. In that sense, judicial environmentalism in India has been both pragmatic and transformative.

Conclusion

The expansion of Article 21 to encompass environmental rights is one of the most remarkable achievements of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. By developing doctrines such as precaution, polluter pays, public trust, intergenerational equity, and absolute liability, the judiciary has transformed environmental protection into a fundamental right. Sustainable development has been constitutionalised, ensuring that growth is balanced with ecological preservation.

Indian environmental jurisprudence today represents a unique model of green constitutionalism, where the right to life is inseparable from the right to a clean and sustainable environment. As new challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss intensify, this judicially crafted framework will remain critical in safeguarding both present and future generations.

References

• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Articles 14, 19, 21, 47, 48A, 51A(g)).
• Environment (Protection) Act 1986.
• Environment (Protection) Act 1986 
• Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981.
• Biological Diversity Act 2002.
• National Green Tribunal Act 2010.
• Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act 2016.
• Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar [1991] 1 SCC 598 (SC).
• M.C. Mehta v Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 395 (Oleum Gas Leak, SC).
• M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath [1997] 1 SCC 388 (SC).
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India [1996] 3 SCC 212 (SC).
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647 (SC).