Environmental Jurisprudence: Expanding the Scope of Article 21 and Sustainable Development

Abstract

Environmental protection has emerged as one of the most significant constitutional developments in India. Through judicial interpretation, Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Indian judiciary has played a transformative role in shaping environmental jurisprudence, often bridging legislative and executive gaps. Landmark cases such as M.C. Mehta v Union of India, Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, and Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India have cemented the principle that a dignified life cannot exist without a pollution-free environment. At the same time, the principle of sustainable development, adopted from international law, has become central to balancing economic growth with ecological preservation. This article critically examines how Article 21 has been expanded to encompass environmental rights, explores key doctrines like the Polluter Pays and Precautionary principles, analyses major case law, and reflects on challenges in implementation. It argues that the right to life is incomplete without environmental protection, and proposes reforms to ensure effective realisation of sustainable development in India’s legal framework.

Introduction

Environmental concerns in India initially found little space in constitutional law. However, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) introduced Articles 48A and 51A(g), imposing duties on the State and citizens to protect the environment. More significantly, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, to include environmental rights. Thus, Article 21 has evolved as a foundation of environmental jurisprudence.The concept of the right to a healthy environment has been steadily incorporated into the understanding of a dignified life. Indian jurisprudence has embraced the principle of sustainable development, ensuring that economic growth and environmental preservation are pursued together. By doing so, environmental law in India has moved beyond mere regulatory measures to establish a framework where ecological concerns are an integral part of the fundamental right to life. This approach underscores the idea that protecting the environment is essential not only for the present generation but also for the well-being of future generations.

Evolution of Environmental Jurisprudence under Article 21

The interpretation of Article 21 the right to life and personal liberty has significantly evolved in India, expanding from protection of mere physical existence to encompassing the right to a clean and healthy environment. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasised that the right to life includes more than mere animal existence[1 ], laying the philosophical foundation for linking human dignity with environmental quality. Initially, environmental protection relied on Directive Principles, such as Article 48A, directing the State to protect the environment, and Article 51A(g), imposing a duty on citizens. However, these provisions were non-justiciable, and enforceable remedies came only through judicial interpretation.

A key moment in this evolution was the Oleum Gas Leak Case (M.C. Mehta v Union of India, 1987), where the Supreme Court applied the principle of strict liability to industries handling hazardous substances, highlighting that industrial negligence causing environmental harm directly threatens human life. This case laid the foundation for linking environmental protection with the fundamental right to life[2]

Right to Environment as Part of Right to Life

The Indian judiciary has progressively interpreted Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, recognising that environmental degradation directly affects human survival and dignity. Scholars have emphasized that this interpretation reflects the principle of environmental constitutionalism, where both the State and citizens are bound by duties to preserve ecological balance, and procedural mechanisms such as public interest litigation empower citizens to enforce environmental rights[3] In Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi ,the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live in a pollution-free environment, establishing the foundation for environmental protection under Article 21[4] This was further reinforced in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, where the Court explicitly recognised the right to clean air and water as integral to the right to life[5] The Oleum Gas Leak Case (M.C. Mehta v Union of India, 1987) marked a significant step by imposing absolute liability on industries handling hazardous substances, highlighting that environmental negligence poses serious threats to human life. Similarly, in the Taj Trapezium Case (M.C. Mehta v Union of India, 1997), the Court took proactive measures to curb industrial pollution affecting the Taj Mahal, reinforcing that environmental protection is an enforceable aspect of Article 21.[6] Scholarly analyses further underscore that judicial activism in India has been pivotal in shaping environmental rights, with courts integrating principles such as the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle into domestic law.[7] Experts also note that this evolution ensures not only immediate protection of citizens but also long-term ecological sustainability, linking the right to life with the broader goal of sustainable development[8]

Sustainable Development and Indian Jurisprudence

The concept of sustainable development, popularised by the Brundtland Report (1987)[9], has become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that economic progress must proceed in harmony with ecological preservation. The watershed moment came in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India, where the Court  in response to widespread tannery pollution in Tamil Nadu, declared that sustainable development is a constitutional mandate under Article 21. Importantly, it embedded the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle into Indian environmental law, marking a shift from treating environmental protection as policy discretion to enforcing it as a constitutional duty[10]

In recent years, the judiciary has used sustainable development to curb dilution of environmental safeguards. In April 2024, the Supreme Court struck down provisions allowing ex-post facto environmental clearances, observing that “such shortcuts are against both the rule of law and the principle of sustainable development.”[11] The Court has also warned against reckless urbanisation. For instance, during proceedings concerning forest clearances in Hyderabad, it held that “30 bulldozers cannot be deployed overnight in the name of development,”[12] emphasising that ecological balance cannot be sacrificed for short-term economic gain. Reports in The Hindu similarly highlight that the Court has expanded the right to environment as part of the right to life, most recently in its April 2024 ruling recognising freedom from climate change risks as a constitutional right.[13]Scholars argue that Indian jurisprudence has gone further than most jurisdictions by treating sustainable development not just as policy but as a binding constitutional principle. Chatterjee notes that Indian courts have aligned domestic constitutional law with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ensuring intergenerational equity. Further, researchers stress the role of environmental democracy, where judicial activism enables citizen participation in shaping environmental outcomes[14] At the same time, critiques in academic commentary caution that courts occasionally tilt towards permitting large-scale projects, raising issues of equity and environmental justice, particularly for displaced or marginalised groups. Nonetheless, the consistent judicial trajectory reflects that sustainable development in India is no longer an aspirational slogan but a judicially enforceable obligation under Article 21.

Comparative Perspectives

Indian environmental jurisprudence has been significantly shaped by developments in international environmental law. The Stockholm Declaration (1972)[15] first recognised the link between human rights and environmental protection, laying the foundation for the principle that a healthy environment is integral to quality of life. The Rio Declaration (1992)[16] built on this, introducing concepts such as the Precautionary Principle and sustainable development that were later absorbed into Indian law, most notably in the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum case. More recently, the Paris Agreement (2015)[17] reinforced the need for global cooperation on climate change, which the Indian Supreme Court has acknowledged in its rulings, especially while interpreting Article 21 in light of climate change risks.

Comparatively, some jurisdictions explicitly embed environmental rights in their constitutions. For instance, South Africa’s Constitution (Section 24) guarantees citizens the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being, coupled with the duty on  the State to protect the environment for future generations. Similarly, Brazil’s Constitution (Article 225) recognises environmental protection as a fundamental right, mandating both State and citizens to safeguard ecological balance. In contrast, the Indian Constitution does not expressly recognise the right to a clean environment, but the Supreme Court has filled this legislative gap by expansively interpreting the right to life under Article 21.

This comparative lens reveals that while countries like South Africa and Brazil enshrine environmental rights directly in their constitutions, India’s judiciary has proactively developed a robust body of environmental jurisprudence through creative interpretation. This demonstrates the adaptability of constitutional law: where explicit rights are absent, judicial activism can elevate international norms into enforceable domestic rights. Such an approach underscores India’s role as a global example of how constitutional courts can bridge legislative shortcomings and advance environmental justice.

Challenges in Implementation

While Indian environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 has evolved remarkably through judicial creativity, its implementation remains fraught with challenges. Despite progressive pronouncements, a persistent gap exists between the ideals enunciated by courts and their realisation on the ground. A key obstacle is regulatory capture—where enforcement agencies become subservient to political and industrial interests rather than acting as independent regulators. This undermines compliance with environmental norms, as seen in repeated violations of industrial emission and effluent standards despite judicial directions.

Another pressing issue is the lack of administrative and financial resources. State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and central authorities are often under-staffed and under-equipped, limiting their ability to monitor and enforce environmental standards effectively. The Hindu has reported on multiple occasions that SPCBs face a severe shortage of technical personnel, making continuous monitoring of industries virtually impossible.[20] Moreover, political interference frequently dilutes environmental clearances, with projects being approved without adequate impact assessments, thereby eroding the principle of sustainable development.

The creation of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010 was a significant step in addressing these concerns, providing a specialised body for the expeditious disposal of environmental cases. The NGT has delivered several landmark rulings, such as orders on the protection of the Yamuna floodplains and restrictions on illegal sand mining. However, it too suffers from capacity issues, including inadequate benches, limited enforcement powers, and frequent delays in the appointment of judicial and expert members. As highlighted by the Times of India, even when the NGT issues strong orders, compliance by state authorities often remains inconsistent, reducing its overall effectiveness.[21]

The challenges are further exacerbated by India’s rapid economic growth and urbanisation, which place immense pressure on natural resources. For instance, despite repeated judicial directions to curb air pollution in Delhi, the capital continues to record hazardous air quality levels during winter months. Reports by the Economic Times and The Hindu highlight how judicial interventions such as restrictions on firecrackers, vehicular norms, and construction bans have not yielded sustained improvements, pointing to weak enforcement and lack of coordination among agencies.[22]

Academic analyses argue that these implementation failures reflect the limitations of judicial activism in the absence of strong executive action. Courts can set principles, but unless supported by effective governance, adequate resources, and political will, environmental jurisprudence risks being reduced to “paper rights” without tangible change.[23] As Razzaque observes, environmental rights require not only recognition but also robust institutional frameworks to translate them into reality[24]

Thus, the Indian experience demonstrates a paradox: while the judiciary has been a global leader in recognising the right to environment under Article 21, the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms continues to hinder its transformative potential. Bridging this gap will require strengthening regulatory institutions, ensuring transparency in environmental decision-making, empowering the NGT, and enhancing citizen participation in monitoring and enforcement. Without such reforms, the promise of Article 21 as a guarantor of environmental rights will remain only partially fulfilled.

Suggested Reforms

While Indian environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 has been transformative, its true impact depends on effective reforms to bridge the gap between judicial innovation and practical enforcement. Several measures can be considered to strengthen the framework of environmental governance:

Strengthening the National Green Tribunal (NGT)

• • The NGT must be provided with greater financial and human resources, including more benches across the country to ensure accessibility.
    
  • Its orders should be given stronger statutory backing, including binding enforcement mechanisms, so that state authorities cannot easily ignore them.

Enhancing judicial capacity 

• Judges and tribunal members should receive specialised training in environmental science, climate change, and international law.
  
• Judicial capacity-building programmes could be developed in collaboration with universities and expert bodies, enabling a more informed application of scientific principles in judgments.
  

Legislative Clarity on Sustainable Development

1. • Parliament should enact a clear framework law on sustainable development, codifying principles like the precautionary principle, polluter-pays principle, and    intergenerational equity.
     
   • This would reduce over-reliance on judicial interpretation and bring coherence to environmental regulation.

Stricter Penalties and Corporate Accountability

• • Environmental violations often attract nominal fines, encouraging non-compliance. Stricter criminal and civil liabilities for industries, along with mandatory compensation and restoration duties, are essential.
    
  • Corporate accountability can also be reinforced through mandatory ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) disclosures, monitored by independent regulators.
    

Community Participation and Public Awareness

• • Local communities play a vital role in monitoring environmental compliance. Mechanisms like social audits, citizen suits, and public hearings should be made more robust.
    
  • Public interest litigation (PIL) has been an effective tool, but wider community participation beyond courts is necessary for preventive action.

Balancing Judicial Activism with restraints

1. • Courts must strike a balance between activism and restraint to preserve institutional legitimacy. While judicial creativity has filled legislative gaps, overreach may invite backlash or non-compliance.
     
   • Clearer roles for the legislature, executive, and judiciary will strengthen the rule of law while ensuring environmental protection.

Integrating Climate Change Considerations

• • • India’s environmental jurisprudence should explicitly incorporate climate change concerns, aligning domestic practice with international commitments under the Paris Agreement.
      
    • Courts and regulators could mandate climate impact assessments as part of environmental clearance processes.

Conclusion 

The judicial expansion of Article 21 has firmly established the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the fundamental right to life. Through progressive doctrines like sustainable development, the Precautionary Principle, and Polluter Pays, the Supreme Court has ensured that ecological protection is not merely aspirational but a binding constitutional obligation. Landmark rulings, from Subhash Kumar to Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, highlight how the judiciary has transformed environmental concerns into enforceable rights.

However, this jurisprudential progress has often been undermined by weak enforcement, regulatory lapses, and the tension between economic growth and ecological sustainability. The National Green Tribunal has emerged as a crucial forum, but greater institutional capacity and legislative clarity are required to bridge the gap between judicial ideals and ground realities.

As India faces mounting challenges of climate change, urbanisation, and resource depletion, the future of environmental governance lies in embedding sustainable development into both law and policy. Strengthening institutions, empowering citizens, and fostering genuine political will are key to ensuring that the right to life remains inseparable from the right to environment. In this sense, India’s environmental jurisprudence is not only a story of judicial innovation but also a roadmap for a sustainable constitutional future.

References

1. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
   
2. M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395
3.  Ekin Özaltay, ‘Environmental Constitutionalism and Duties of Individuals in India’ (2022) 34(3) Journal of Environmental Law 399 https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/34/3/399/6648946
4. Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608.
5. Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598.
6. M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) (1997) 2 SCC 353
7. ‘Judicial Activism and Environmental Protection in India: A Progressive Approach’ (HLM Group Blogs, 2025) https://www.hlmgroup.org/blogs/judicial-activism-and-environmental-protection-in-india-a-progressive-approach
8. Right Against Climate Change as Part of Right to Life, Human Rights Journal, April 20, 2025. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/04/20/a-breath-of-fresh-air-indian-supreme-court-declares-protection-from-climate-change-a-fundamental-right/
9. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (OUP 1987)
10. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.
11. The Hindu, ‘SC Strikes Down Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances’ (2 April 2024) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-strikes-down-ex-post-facto-environmental-clearances/article68011234.ece
12. The Hindu, ‘Supreme Court cautions against reckless urbanisation in Hyderabad forest clearance case’ (15 April 2024) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-cautions-reckless-urbanisation-hyderabad/article68045672.ece.
13. The Hindu, ‘SC Recognises Right Against Climate Change Risks under Article 21’ (30 April 2024) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-recognises-right-against-climate-change/article68078911.ece
14. Arnab Chatterjee, ‘Sustainable Development Goals and Indian Constitutional Law’ (2022) NUJS Law Review.
15. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (16 June 1972) UN Doc A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1.
    
16. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (14 June 1992) UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 (vol I).
    
17. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) UNTS Vol. 3156.
18. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 24.
19.  Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, 1988, art 225
20. The Hindu, ‘Pollution Control Boards Face Staff Crunch, Lack of Technical Experts’ (2023) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pollution-control-boards-staff-shortage/article67381212.ece
21. Times of India, ‘NGT Orders Often Ignored by State Authorities, Says Report’ (2022) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ngt-orders-ignored-by-states/articleshow/95129321.cms
22. Economic Times, ‘Delhi Air Pollution: Courts’ Orders Fail to Clean the Air’ (2022) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/delhi-air-pollution-courts-orders-fail-to-clean-air/articleshow/95500124.cms
23. Lavanya Rajamani, ‘The Judiciary and the Implementation of Environmental Law in India’ (2007) 6(2) Law, Environment and Development Journal 20.
    
24. Jona Razzaque, Environmental Rights in Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2004).
25. Constitution of India, art 21
26. Constitution of India, art 48A
27. Constitution of India, art 51A(g)
28. National Green Tribunal Act 2010