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

Introduction

In the bustling streets of Delhi, a mother covers her child’s face with a cloth mask as they walk to school through a haze of smog. In the villages along the Ganga, families hesitate before drawing water from wells that once sustained generations. In industrial towns across India, communities watch helplessly as their ancestral lands bear the scars of unchecked development. These are not merely statistics or legal abstractions—they are the lived realities of millions of Indians whose fundamental right to life and dignity hangs in the balance of environmental degradation.

The story of environmental jurisprudence in India is, at its core, a deeply human story. It is about ordinary citizens who refused to accept that progress must come at the cost of breathable air, clean water, and a habitable planet. It is about judges who recognized that the Constitution’s promise of life and liberty rings hollow when the very foundations of life—clean air, pure water, and fertile soil—are under threat. Most importantly, it is about the gradual but profound realization that environmental protection is not a luxury for the affluent but a basic human right essential for survival and dignity.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law,” has emerged as the constitutional conscience of environmental protection. Through decades of judicial interpretation, this seemingly simple provision has been transformed into a powerful instrument of environmental justice, recognizing that life without environmental quality is not life in its fullest sense.[1]

The Human Context of Constitutional Evolution

From Survival to Dignity: Understanding Article 21’s Journey

When the Constitution was drafted in 1950, India was a nation emerging from colonial rule, grappling with poverty, partition, and the challenge of building a democratic society. Environmental concerns, as we understand them today, were not at the forefront of public consciousness. Yet, the framers embedded within Article 21 a principle so fundamental and expansive that it would later embrace environmental protection as an essential component of human dignity.

The evolution of Article 21 from a narrow procedural guarantee to a comprehensive charter of human rights reflects India’s growing understanding of what it means to live with dignity. The landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) marked a watershed moment when the Supreme Court declared that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity. This seemingly simple statement opened the floodgates for a more humane interpretation of constitutional rights.

The Catalyst of Human Suffering

The expansion of Article 21 to include environmental rights was not born in academic discourse but forged in the crucible of human suffering caused by environmental degradation. The Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984, which claimed thousands of lives and left countless more with permanent disabilities, starkly illustrated how industrial negligence could violate the most basic human right—the right to life. The disaster became a defining moment that highlighted the urgent need for constitutional protection against environmental harm.

Similarly, the degradation of the Himalayas through rampant quarrying, as addressed in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985), was not merely an environmental issue but a human crisis affecting the livelihoods, health, and cultural identity of mountain communities. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case marked the beginning of recognizing environmental protection as integral to the right to life.[2]

The Humanistic Foundation of Environmental Rights

Life as More Than Biological Existence

The genius of Indian environmental jurisprudence lies in its recognition that life under Article 21 encompasses far more than mere biological existence. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), when the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air, it was acknowledging a fundamental truth: human dignity is inseparable from environmental quality.

This understanding resonates deeply with Indian philosophical traditions that have always emphasized the interconnectedness of all life. The Upanishadic principle of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family) finds legal expression in the recognition that environmental harm to one affects the dignity and well-being of all. The Constitution, through judicial interpretation, has embraced this ancient wisdom, creating a legal framework that sees environmental protection not as an abstract goal but as a prerequisite for human flourishing.

The Democratic Imperative of Environmental Justice

Environmental degradation does not affect all members of society equally. The poor, the marginalized, and the vulnerable bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and environmental harm. Industrial pollution affects slum dwellers more than the affluent who can afford to live in cleaner neighborhoods. Climate change impacts farmers and coastal communities more severely than urban professionals. This environmental inequality makes the expansion of Article 21 not just a matter of constitutional interpretation but a democratic imperative.

The Supreme Court’s recognition of environmental rights under Article 21 represents a commitment to environmental democracy—the principle that all citizens, regardless of economic status, have an equal right to a clean and healthy environment. This principle transforms environmental protection from a policy choice to a constitutional mandate, ensuring that the state cannot sacrifice the environmental rights of the marginalized for the economic benefit of the powerful.[3]

Judicial Compassion and Constitutional Innovation

The Court as Guardian of Environmental Rights

The transformation of Article 21 into an instrument of environmental protection reflects the Indian judiciary’s capacity for compassionate innovation. Faced with the stark reality of environmental degradation affecting millions of lives, the courts chose to interpret the Constitution as a living document capable of addressing contemporary challenges.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987), the Supreme Court introduced the principle of absolute liability, holding that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities must be absolutely liable for any harm caused. This judgment was not merely a legal ruling but a moral statement that those who profit from dangerous activities cannot escape responsibility for the human cost of their operations.

The Court’s approach in these cases reflects a deep understanding that constitutional rights are meaningless if they cannot protect people from real and immediate threats to their dignity and well-being. By expanding Article 21 to include environmental rights, the judiciary demonstrated that the Constitution is not a static document but a living charter that evolves to meet the needs of a changing society.

The Principle of Intergenerational Justice

One of the most profound aspects of environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 is its recognition of intergenerational responsibility. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the present generation holds the environment in trust for future generations. This principle, articulated in various judgments, reflects a deeply humanistic understanding of our relationship with the natural world.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India (the ongoing forest case), the Court has consistently emphasized that forests are not merely economic resources but the heritage of humanity that must be preserved for future generations. This perspective transforms environmental protection from a contemporary policy issue to a moral obligation that transcends time.[4]

The Human Cost of Environmental Degradation

Air Pollution: The Right to Breathe

Perhaps nowhere is the human dimension of environmental rights more evident than in the battle against air pollution. In cities across India, air pollution has reached levels that pose immediate and severe health risks. The Supreme Court’s interventions in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution) represent more than legal remedies—they are lifelines for millions of people whose health and dignity are compromised by polluted air.

The Court’s recognition that the right to breathe clean air is fundamental to the right to life acknowledges a basic truth: without clean air, life itself becomes a struggle for survival rather than an opportunity for human flourishing. The mandating of CNG for public transport in Delhi, while economically disruptive, reflected the Court’s understanding that human health and dignity cannot be subordinated to economic convenience.

Water Pollution: The Crisis of Dignity

Access to clean water is fundamental to human dignity, yet millions of Indians lack access to safe drinking water due to industrial pollution and environmental degradation. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on water pollution recognizes that contaminated water is not merely a health issue but an assault on human dignity.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), the Court dealt with chemical industries that had poisoned groundwater and soil in Rajasthan villages. The judgment was notable not just for its legal principles but for its recognition of the human suffering caused by environmental degradation. The Court’s order that polluting industries bear the cost of remediation and compensation acknowledged that environmental harm inflicts real costs on real people.

Industrial Pollution: Communities Under Siege

Industrial pollution often affects entire communities, destroying not just the environment but the social fabric and cultural identity of affected populations. The Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving industrial pollution reflects an understanding that environmental harm is also cultural and social harm.

The recent controversy over the Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu, which led to police firing on protesters and multiple deaths, illustrates the human cost of environmental conflicts. While the plant provided economic benefits, its environmental impact affected the health, livelihood, and dignity of the local community. The closure of the plant, following sustained public opposition and legal challenges, reflects the principle that economic development cannot come at the cost of human dignity and environmental health.[5]

The Integration of Human Values in Environmental Law

The Precautionary Principle: Protecting Human Vulnerability

The adoption of the precautionary principle in Indian environmental law reflects a deeply humanistic approach to environmental protection. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that the precautionary principle requires that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This principle recognizes human vulnerability in the face of environmental uncertainty. It acknowledges that communities cannot wait for scientific certainty before seeking protection from potential environmental harm. The precautionary principle thus becomes a shield protecting human dignity against the uncertainties of environmental risk.

The Polluter Pays Principle: Environmental Justice in Practice

The polluter pays principle, as adopted by Indian courts, embodies a fundamental principle of environmental justice: those who cause environmental harm must bear the cost of remediation and compensation. This principle ensures that the burden of environmental damage does not fall on innocent communities while polluters reap the benefits of harmful activities.

The application of this principle in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Span Motels case, 1996) demonstrates the Court’s commitment to environmental equity. By requiring polluters to compensate for environmental damage, the Court ensures that environmental protection is not merely a matter of regulatory compliance but of social responsibility.

Contemporary Challenges: Climate Change and Human Rights

The Global Dimension of Local Rights

Climate change represents the ultimate test of environmental jurisprudence under Article 21. Unlike localized pollution, climate change affects the entire planet, yet its impacts are felt most severely by the world’s most vulnerable populations. The challenge for Indian environmental law is to address global environmental threats while protecting local communities and ecosystems.

Recent petitions before Indian courts seeking recognition of climate change as a violation of Article 21 represent the next frontier of environmental jurisprudence. These cases ask fundamental questions about the state’s obligation to protect citizens from global environmental threats and the rights of present and future generations to climate stability.

Urban Environmental Crisis: The Challenge of Sustainable Cities

India’s rapid urbanization has created unprecedented environmental challenges, particularly in terms of air and water quality. Cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru face environmental crises that affect millions of urban residents. The Supreme Court’s interventions in urban environmental cases reflect an understanding that sustainable urbanization is essential for protecting the rights and dignity of urban populations.

The Court’s orders regarding waste management, air pollution control, and urban planning represent attempts to balance the needs of growing urban populations with environmental sustainability. These interventions recognize that urban environmental quality is not a luxury but a necessity for maintaining human dignity in India’s rapidly growing cities.

The Path Forward: Strengthening Environmental Democracy

Participatory Environmental Governance

The future of environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 lies in strengthening participatory environmental governance. Environmental decisions affect communities directly, and these communities must have meaningful opportunities to participate in environmental decision-making. The Supreme Court has recognized this principle in various judgments, emphasizing the importance of public participation in environmental assessment and monitoring.

The establishment of the National Green Tribunal has created specialized forums for environmental justice, but the challenge remains to make these institutions accessible to affected communities. Environmental democracy requires not just legal rights but practical mechanisms for communities to assert and protect these rights.[6]

Building Environmental Citizenship

The expansion of Article 21 to include environmental rights creates corresponding responsibilities for all citizens. Environmental protection cannot be the sole responsibility of the state; it requires active participation by all members of society. The Constitution’s recognition of environmental protection as a fundamental duty in Article 51A(g) complements the rights-based approach by emphasizing citizen responsibility.

Building environmental citizenship requires education, awareness, and institutional mechanisms that enable citizens to participate effectively in environmental protection. This includes not just formal legal processes but community-based environmental monitoring, participatory environmental planning, and citizen advocacy for environmental rights.

Strengthening Enforcement and Accountability

The gap between legal rights and practical enforcement remains a significant challenge in environmental jurisprudence. While courts have recognized comprehensive environmental rights under Article 21, ensuring effective implementation of these rights requires strengthened institutional capacity and accountability mechanisms.

This includes building technical expertise within environmental regulatory bodies, creating effective monitoring systems, and establishing clear accountability mechanisms for environmental violations. It also requires addressing the political economy of environmental degradation, including the influence of powerful economic interests on environmental policy and enforcement.[7]

Conclusion: Toward Environmental Dignity

The expansion of Article 21 to encompass environmental rights represents one of the most significant achievements of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It reflects a profound understanding that human dignity is inseparable from environmental quality and that constitutional rights must evolve to address contemporary challenges.

The journey from the narrow interpretation of Article 21 as a procedural guarantee to its current status as a comprehensive charter of environmental rights illustrates the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation. This evolution has been driven not by abstract legal theory but by the real experiences of communities affected by environmental degradation and judges willing to interpret the Constitution as a living document capable of protecting human dignity in all its dimensions.

Yet significant challenges remain. The gap between legal recognition of environmental rights and their practical implementation continues to affect millions of Indians. Environmental degradation disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized, making environmental justice inseparable from social justice. Climate change presents new challenges that require innovative legal and policy responses.[8]

The future of environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 depends on our collective commitment to environmental democracy—a system of governance that recognizes environmental quality as fundamental to human dignity and ensures meaningful participation by all members of society in environmental decision-making. This requires not just legal reforms but a transformation in how we understand the relationship between human dignity, social justice, and environmental protection.

The story of Article 21 and environmental rights is ultimately a story about hope—hope that the law can be a force for environmental justice, hope that constitutional rights can protect the vulnerable from environmental harm, and hope that human dignity and environmental protection can be pursued together rather than in opposition to each other.

As India continues to grapple with the challenges of development and environmental protection, the humanistic foundation of environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 provides a framework for addressing these challenges in ways that honor both human dignity and environmental integrity. The Constitution’s promise of life and liberty can only be fulfilled when it includes the promise of a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for all.

In the end, environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 is not just about legal principles or policy frameworks—it is about ensuring that the constitutional promise of life with dignity remains meaningful for present and future generations. It is about creating a society where a mother does not have to cover her child’s face against polluted air, where communities can trust the water they drink, and where development enhances rather than degrades the environmental foundation of human dignity.

This vision of environmental democracy and environmental dignity represents the continuing evolution of Article 21 as a living guarantee of human rights in an interconnected and environmentally challenged world.

¹ The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.

² The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 48A (inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976).

³ The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 51A(g).

⁴ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

⁵ Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.

⁶ Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652.

⁷ Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.

⁸ M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), AIR 1987 SC 1086.

⁹ Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.

¹⁰ Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.

[5] ¹¹ T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228.

¹² M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution), AIR 1991 SC 813.

¹³ Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India, (2017) 2 SCC 1.

¹⁴ M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), AIR 1997 SC 734.

¹⁵ Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3889.

[6] ¹⁶ Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248.

¹⁷ M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468.

[7] ¹⁸ Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215.

¹⁹ Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751.

²⁰ A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812.

²¹ The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

²² The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

[8] ²³ Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (1992), Principle 15.

²⁴ Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1973).

²⁵ Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 2015 (ratified by India in 2016).