Published On: 30th October 2025
Authored By: Anandi Chaturvedi
Chanakya Law College Rudrapur, Uttrakhand
Abstract
The Indian Constitution, while not explicitly enshrining environmental protection as a fundamental right, has witnessed a remarkable evolution of environmental jurisprudence through the creative and activist interpretation of Article 21. This legal article examines the transformative role of the Indian judiciary in expanding the ambit of the right to life to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. It traces this jurisprudential journey from its inception to the incorporation of global principles like the Public Trust Doctrine and the Polluter Pays Principle. The article further delves into the judiciary’s role in institutionalizing the concept of sustainable development, a critical balance between ecological preservation and economic growth. It concludes by analyzing the challenges and proposing future directions for this dynamic field of law, emphasizing the need for robust implementation and a shift towards addressing emerging environmental threats like climate change.
Introduction: The Emergence of a Constitutional Right
The constitutional landscape of India, like its physical geography, is a testament to immense diversity and a capacity for change. The Indian Constitution, drafted in the mid-20th century, did not contain explicit provisions for environmental protection, reflecting a time when ecological concerns were nascent on the global stage. However, as the nation grappled with rapid industrialization and escalating environmental degradation, a new legal paradigm emerged. This paradigm, driven by judicial activism, saw the right to a clean and healthy environment being ingeniously “read into” the expansive and liberal interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The landmark case of “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India”1, expanded the meaning of “life” to encompass dignity and quality of living, laying the groundwork for the environmental dimension of Article 21. . The right to a pollution-free environment, to clean air, and to clean water became an integral part of the right to a dignified human life.
A Foundational Shift: The 42nd Amendment and Public Interest Litigation
While judicial interpretation has been the primary engine of environmental law, the legislative branch also took a crucial step in formalizing environmental concerns within the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment of 1976, often referred to as a mini-constitution, introduced two pivotal provisions. The first, Article 48A, was added to the Directive Principles of State Policy. It directs the State to “endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” The second, Article 51A(g), a Fundamental Duty, mandates every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.” They provided a constitutional basis for the judiciary to build upon, signaling the State’s and citizens’ shared responsibility towards environmental protection. The legislative acknowledgment of environmental preservation as a constitutional goal provided the judiciary with a moral and ethical anchor for its subsequent creative interpretation.
Judicial Activism and the Expansion of Article 21
Article 21 states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Though its text is simple, judicial interpretation has significantly widened its scope.
The landmark cases that established the basis for environmental law under Article 21 represented a crucial change in Indian legal history. This journey commenced with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.*, 2famously referred to as the ‘Dehradun Quarrying Case.’ This case was among the first to see the Court intervene to stop activities harmful to the environment. Although Article 21 was not specifically cited, the ruling marked a shift in the judiciary’s readiness to engage in issues concerning ecological integrity.
The Court’s consideration for the local community and the harm to the environment set the stage for subsequent, more direct decisions.
The jurisprudential door was fully opened in *Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.* 3The Court unequivocally declared that the right to a pollution-free environment is a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. This landmark decision established a powerful precedent, enabling citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 to seek redress for environmental harm. It transformed environmental protection from a discretionary state policy into a constitutional mandate. The Court’s activism was not limited to just stopping polluters; it began to shape a more comprehensive legal framework.
Role Of Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) became the ideal legal tool for this new wave of judicial action. PILs permitted any individual or group to petition the court on behalf of a public or underprivileged group experiencing environmental harm. This got around the old ‘locus standi’ criterion, which said that the person who was wronged had to be directly impacted in order to petition. Together with the constitutional support of Articles 48A and 51A(g), this procedural innovation created a plethora of environmental cases and emerged as the main avenue for citizens to pursue environmental justice.
Some of the landmark cases solidified this expansion. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4 (Ganga Pollution Case), the Court issued a series of directives to compel municipalities and industries to take action to stop polluting the Ganga River, demonstrating its willingness to enforce environmental standards directly.
Similarly, in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 5(Taj Mahal Case), the Court ordered the closure of industries around the Taj Mahal to protect the monument from acid rain, thereby extending the right to a clean environment to cultural heritage.
The most significant pronouncement came in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case),6 where the Court evolved the principle of Absolute Liability, holding that any enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry is absolutely liable for any harm caused, with no exceptions. Through PILs, the courts assumed a supervisory role over environmental governance, often issuing policy-level guidelines where legislative or executive measures were inadequate. This mechanism has been instrumental in expanding access to environmental justice
Incorporating Global Principles: Public Trust and Polluter Pays
Acknowledging the global dimension of environmental issues, the Indian judiciary started to incorporate internationally acknowledged legal principles into domestic law. The Public Trust Doctrine, which originated in the United States, was adopted in a significant ruling known as M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath7. In this ruling, the Court determined that the State acts as the guardian of natural resources—such as air, water, and forests—for the benefit of the public. It asserted that these resources are a natural endowment intended for the welfare of everyone and cannot be transformed into private ownership.
This doctrine imposes a legal obligation on the State to protect these resources for the enjoyment of the public and to prevent their commercial exploitation for private gain. The Public Trust Doctrine is a powerful tool, as it holds the State accountable and provides a legal basis for challenging decisions that compromise environmental health for economic benefits.
In a similar vein, the Polluter Pays Principle, which is a fundamental element of international environmental law, was recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India8. The Court ruled that the polluter is responsible for the expenses associated with remedying the damage they have inflicted and is also obligated to compensate those affected by the pollution. This principle serves not only as a means of compensation but also acts as a significant deterrent by placing the financial responsibility for environmental damage on those who create it. The Court’s application of these principles highlighted its dedication to a proactive and comprehensive approach to environmental governance, shifting from merely reacting to pollution to implementing a more preventive and accountability-focused framework.
International and Domestic Legal Frameworks
The evolution of Indian environmental jurisprudence is deeply influenced by international agreements and domestic legislation. . In the Constitution of India, Article 253 grants the Parliament the authority to create laws for all or specific regions of India to implement international agreements, effectively transforming treaties into domestic legislation.
The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm marked a global shift in recognizing environmental issues India, as a signatory, responded by passing the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981. The Stockholm Declaration, along with other international conventions, provided the impetus and legal language for Indian courts to build their jurisprudence. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, a product of the 1992 Earth Summit, further reinforced principles like sustainable development and the precautionary principle, which were subsequently incorporated into Indian law.
On the domestic front, the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, passed in the wake of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, provided a comprehensive umbrella for environmental governance. The most significant development, however, was the establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010.
The NGT Act created a specialized body with jurisdiction over all civil cases involving substantial questions relating to environmental protection and the enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment. The NGT has played a crucial role in providing speedy and expert justice for environmental issues, bypassing the often-slow general court system.
Sustainable Development: The Guiding Principle
As environmental jurisprudence matured, the judiciary recognized the complex relationship between environmental protection and economic development. The solution was not to choose one over the other, but to integrate them through the principle of sustainable development. The Supreme Court, in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India,9underscored the importance of balancing environmental protection with the needs of the project-affected people and the broader public interest. The Court has consistently held that sustainable development, as a concept, has been integrated into Indian law and should be at the core of all developmental activities. It requires a balance between the right to development and the right to a healthy environment.
Further, the Court has consistently applied the Precautionary Principle, which is a key component of sustainable development. This principle, articulated in the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum case, states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, a lack of full scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. This has shifted the burden of proof to the proponent of a development project, requiring them to demonstrate that their activity will not cause environmental harm. This has been a monumental shift, protecting the environment from activities that may have long-term and irreversible consequences.
Challenges and Future Directions
While the expansion of Article 21 has been a resounding success in a jurisprudential sense, significant challenges remain. The primary challenge is the implementation gap. Despite strong judicial pronouncements, the on-ground reality often falls short. Lack of effective monitoring, bureaucratic apathy, and corruption often undermine the Court’s directives. Furthermore, the sheer volume of environmental litigation places a heavy burden on the judicial system.
Going forward, environmental jurisprudence needs to address new frontiers. Climate change presents the most significant challenge of our time, and the courts will have to grapple with the complexities of climate change litigation. The concept of intergenerational equity, which argues that the present generation has a moral and legal obligation to protect the environment for future generations, will likely become a cornerstone of future litigation. Moreover, the jurisprudence must evolve to address issues of environmental justice and equity, ensuring that the burden of environmental degradation does not disproportionately fall on the poor and marginalized.
The judiciary’s role in balancing development and ecology will continue to be a tightrope walk. The future of environmental jurisprudence lies not just in expanding existing principles but in innovating new ones to address the evolving nature of environmental threats. This includes the potential for recognizing the “rights of nature” or “rights of ecosystems,” a concept that is gaining traction globally.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has, through its innovative and purposeful interpretation of Article 21, created a strong and evolving framework of environmental law. It has elevated the right to a healthy environment from a simple policy goal to a justiciable fundamental right. By incorporating global standards and institutionalizing sustainable development, the courts have not only safeguarded the environment but also held the State and polluters accountable. This development in jurisprudence serves as a compelling testament to the judiciary’s role as a protector of constitutional values. Nevertheless, the true measure of its success will depend on the effective execution of its rulings and its capacity to respond to the unprecedented environmental challenges of the 21st century. The legacy of Indian environmental jurisprudence embodies the promise that the right to a life of dignity, as enshrined in Article 21, is incomplete without the guarantee of a clean and healthy environment for everyone.
References
Books
- Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India (2008).
- S.R Myneni, Environmental Law(2013)
Articles and Journals
- C. Mehta, Public Interest Litigation: A New Jurisprudence, 41 J. Indian L. Inst. 319 (1999).
1 (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248
2 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1985) 2 SCC 431.
3 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 598.
4 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471.
5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353.
6 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
7 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
8 Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
9 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.
