Published on: 22nd December, 2025
Authored by: Khushi Adyalkar
Indian Law Society Law College, Pune
Abstract
The environment is essential for the survival of all living organisms, yet in daily life, environmental needs are often neglected. Recognizing the constitutional provisions made for the preservation and conservation of the environment is crucial. This article examines the linkage between environmental laws and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It explores how access to a clean environment and fresh air is intrinsically connected to the right to a dignified life under Article 21, tracing the evolution of environmental jurisprudence from the British period through post-independence India to contemporary judicial interpretation.
I. Introduction
Understanding the environment begins with its etymology. The word “environment” derives from the French word environ, meaning “surrounding” or “encircle.”[1] The environment can be defined as the sum total of all living and non-living elements and their effects that influence human life. It encompasses all factors and conditions in the surroundings that may impact the development, action, or survival of an organism or group of organisms.
The Indian Constitution has incorporated provisions for environmental preservation and the sustainable continuance of life. Environmental jurisprudence—the study of laws emerged and evolved for environmental conservation—has developed from the pre-independence era through ongoing amendments in recent times. This legal evolution reflects India’s growing recognition that environmental protection is inseparable from the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty.
II. Historical Development of Environmental Law in India
A. During the British Period
During the British era, control of forests shifted to the colonial government, which established its own rules and regulations for forest conservation. The British government began exercising control over forests in 1806, assuming full control and restricting access primarily to British officials. The first significant legislative step concerning monopoly rights over forests was the Forest Act of 1865.[2] This Act was revised in 1878 and extended to most territories under British rule.[3] The British government declared its first forest policy through a resolution on October 9, 1894.[4]
While these colonial forest laws were primarily exploitative—designed to extract timber and other resources for imperial benefit—they established a framework of state control over natural resources that would influence post-independence environmental legislation.
B. Post-Independence Period
The Indian Constitution incorporated provisions for the preservation and conservation of forests and the environment, demonstrating that the framers recognized environmental concerns even at the time of drafting. Constitutional provisions addressing environmental protection include Article 48A, which directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife,[5] and Article 51A(g), which imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.[6]
Beyond constitutional provisions, the Indian Penal Code contains several sections with environmental implications. Provisions such as Section 268 (public nuisance), Section 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection), Section 284 (negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance), Section 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), Section 286 (negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance), and Sections 425-440 (mischief) have an indirect bearing on the environment.[7] More directly, Section 277 addresses water pollution, providing that “whosoever voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring or reservoir, so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used,” commits an offense.[8] Similarly, Section 278 criminalizes air pollution, making it an offense for any person to voluntarily vitiate the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons.[9]
These provisions, while not explicitly using the term “environment,” clearly relate to environmental protection. Their inclusion demonstrates that the constitutional and legal framework took conservation and protection of the environment seriously from the outset.
III. Article 21 and the Right to Life
The Constitution of India grants fundamental rights and duties to citizens, ensuring that personal liberty is not infringed through harmful practices. Article 21, contained within Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights), specifically provides: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[10]
Initially interpreted narrowly to mean mere physical existence, Article 21 has undergone expansive judicial interpretation over the decades. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the “right to life” encompasses much more than animal existence—it means the right to live with human dignity and includes all aspects that make life meaningful, complete, and worth living.
IV. Interrelation Between Environmental Jurisprudence and Article 21
Access to a clean environment, free from pollution and impurities, is a fundamental aspect of the right to life. Clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, and a healthy environment are essential prerequisites for human dignity and survival—all of which fall within the scope of Article 21.
The Supreme Court has expansively interpreted this right to include the right to a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment, thereby establishing an inextricable link between environmental protection and human survival and dignity. In the landmark judgment of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar,[11] the Court recognized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. The Court held that if anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or other elements that are necessary for enjoying an unpolluted and healthy environment.
Similarly, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case),[12] the Court developed foundational principles such as the “polluter pays principle” and the “precautionary principle,” which have since become cornerstones of environmental governance in India. The polluter pays principle holds that the entity responsible for environmental damage must bear the cost of remediation, while the precautionary principle mandates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Through such judicial activism and progressive interpretation, the Supreme Court has ensured that environmental protection is not viewed merely as a policy directive or a matter of legislative discretion, but as an enforceable fundamental right. This jurisprudential development through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has transformed Article 21 into a powerful tool for environmental protection, enabling citizens and organizations to directly approach the Supreme Court for environmental justice.
The Court’s interpretation has also recognized that environmental rights are inherently linked to intergenerational equity—the principle that the present generation holds the environment in trust for future generations and has a responsibility to pass it on in no worse condition than it was received. This holistic understanding ensures that Article 21 serves as the constitutional foundation for balancing developmental needs with ecological sustainability, making environmental concerns central to the constitutional guarantee of living with dignity.
V. Conclusion
Environmental jurisprudence in India has evolved hand in hand with Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has played a transformative role in expanding the scope of Article 21 to encompass the right to a clean and healthy environment, thereby elevating environmental protection from a mere policy concern to a fundamental constitutional right. This interpretation not only safeguards human dignity but also ensures ecological balance for future generations.
Through landmark judgments and the development of environmental principles such as the polluter pays principle, precautionary principle, and the doctrine of public trust, Indian courts have established that the right to a dignified life is impossible without a safe and sustainable environment. Thus, Article 21 stands as the constitutional backbone of environmental justice in India, embodying the recognition that environmental protection and human rights are inseparable. The continued evolution of this jurisprudence demonstrates the Constitution’s capacity to adapt to contemporary challenges while remaining true to its fundamental commitment to life, liberty, and dignity.
References
[1] The etymology of “environment” traces to the Old French environner, meaning “to surround,” which itself derives from environ, meaning “around.”
[2] The Forest Act, 1865 (Act No. VII of 1865) (India).
[3] The Indian Forest Act, 1878 (Act No. VII of 1878) (India).
[4] Government of India, Forest Policy Resolution (Oct. 9, 1894).
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 48A (added by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976).
[6] INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g) (added by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976).
[7] Indian Penal Code, 1860, §§ 268, 269, 284, 285, 286, 425-440 (India).
[8] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 277 (India).
[9] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 278 (India).
[10] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[11] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 (India).
[12] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), (1987) 1 SCC 395 (India).
