Environmental jurisprudence : Expanding the Scope of Article 21 and sustainable development

Abstract

 The environmental law in India is a great example of the singular position of the judiciary in interpreting not only the constitutional directives but also the ecological issues they concern. By the broad interpretations of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has made the right to life a right to live in a pollution-free environment, thereby associating human dignity with environmental balance. ¹Such legal activism has changed the character of the court-developed doctrines such as the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, and Public Trust Doctrine, at the same time, the court has been integrating the principle of sustainable development in Indian environmental law.² Yet, the problem of fast economic growth coexisting with ecological sustainability is still there. This paper outlines the course of environmental jurisprudence in India, its constitutional basis, judicial role, and the ongoing conflict between development and environmental protection.

Introduction

The relationship between law and environment has undergone a vast a drastic transformation from being a secondary concern with limited statutes such as Water Act 1974 ³and Air Act 1981⁴ to a crucial and primary concern where the judiciary the honorable Supreme Court has been playing the role of a trailblazer in bridging the gap between law and environment .

Hence by expanding the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to life with dignity and personal liberty the judiciary has changed it to right to live in clean and environment with the ambits of fundamental rights.⁵ This change has reflected a shift from anthropocentric to eco – centric legal thinking making ecological sustainability is a significant concern.

So how is the constitution reinterpreted and shaped to look upon such crucial matters .

Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection 

Initially when the constitution was framed it did not explicitly expressed any provision for environmental protection because at that point of time the primary concern was socio-economic forces moreover the awareness about environment protection was still not a global concern . However with the enactment of 42^nd Amendment in constitution in 1976 it introduced two critical provisions that was :

Article 48A – Directive Principle of State Policy) – Through this provision, the State is urged to take care and maintain the environment and ensure the safety of forests and animals. ⁶

Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty) – This article makes it mandatory for every citizen to ensure the protection and improvement of nature which includes the forest, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and also show love and care for the other living beings. ⁷

Though these provisions did not have the power to be implemented through courts, they offered a constitutionally backed framework for the protection of the environment. Moreover, they signified India’s ncreasing adherence to global environmental standards, particularly post-1972, when the major worldwide conference that first recognized the connection between the environment and human rights was held – the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.which first recognized the connection between the environment and human rights.⁸

However, the true constitutional revolution in environmental law occurred through Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Originally meant to protect individuals from arbitrary State action, Article 21 was reinterpreted by the judiciary to include a wide range of derivative rights—clean air, safe drinking water, healthy surroundings, and ecological balance. ⁹Thus, through judicial interpretation, environmental protection was elevated to the level of a fundamental right.

Judicial Expansion of Article 21: Evolution of Environmental Jurisprudence

 The Indian judiciary has been a leader in shaping environmental law, often stepping in when the legislature or executive fell short. In a number of landmark cases, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have interpreted Article 21 to include environmental rights.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985 – Dehradun Quarrying Case)

This was one of the earliest cases linking environment to constitutional rights. The case Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), also known as the Dehradun Valley Litigation, dealt with the ecological harm caused by limestone mining in the Mussoorie hills.

Mining led to landslides, destruction of forests, drying of water springs, and severe environmental damage. The petition under Article 32 highlighted violations of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and argued that unchecked mining violated the right to life under Article 21, which includes the right to a healthy environment. Respondents stressed economic gains, employment, and foreign exchange, while petitioners highlighted ecological imbalance and unlawful leases. The Supreme Court, after consulting the Bhargav Committee, held quarrying illegal in forest areas and prioritized rehabilitation of workers through the Eco-Task Force.

Conclusion: Article 21 guarantees a healthy environment as a fundamental right. Sustainable development is essential, and administrative actions must balance economic progress and ecological preservation to protect future generations. ¹⁰

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986 – Oleum Gas Leak Case)

The MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986-87) is a landmark judgment in Indian environmental law delivered after the Bhopal Gas tragedy. Following two Oleum gas leaks from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers in Delhi that caused fatalities and injuries, MC Mehta filed a PIL under Article 32 seeking closure of the hazardous plant. The Supreme Court, led by CJI PN Bhagwati, expanded the scope of Article 21 and Article 32, holding that the right to life includes protection against industrial hazards and that compensation claims are maintainable under PILs.

Rejecting the English rule of strict liability, the Court introduced the principle of absolute liability, making hazardous industries wholly responsible for any harm caused, without exceptions. While permitting Shriram to resume operations under strict conditions, the judgment set a precedent for judicial activism, balancing industrial growth with community safety, and became a cornerstone of Indian environmental jurisprudence. ¹¹

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar is a landmark case in the environmental laws of India, which had brought out very clearly that the right to a clean and healthy environment is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to life unquestionably includes the right to pure air and water required for a healthy and balanced living environment.

The matter came up on a scandalous pollution practice of the iron and steel company by the industrial waste of the Tata Iron & Steel Company polluting

Bokaro River, and people falling ill because of the contaminated water, losing their source of livelihood. The petition was rejected, however, because the questions of the petitioner’s bona fides were raised, the court, in this case, went beyond the issue at hand and drew the line between the rights and duties regarding environmental matters.

Through this matter, the courts declared that it is a fundamental Constitution’s duty of the State to take such steps that prevent the environmental degradation of the atmosphere as well as that they have to thoroughly implement the measures for pollution control. At the same time, along with that, the role of PILs as an easy channel to reach environmental justice was acknowledged. Thus, the judiciary set the arena for much newer and greater cases of judicial activism to be considered while safeguarding the environmental balance and citizens’ ecologically related rights.

Such a judgment was the turning point in the history of the human rights where the integration of environmental issues within the scope of the rights recognized under Indian constitutional law became the very object of the Indian Supreme Court’s concern as per the Indian constitutional framework. ¹²

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India

The 1996 case Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India was a landmark that changed the course of Indian environmental law. It was a PIL by the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action alleging that Bichhri, a village in Rajasthan, had been extremely polluted. Patients were found to be living in the village due to afflictions caused by factories in the region which had been manufacturing H-Acid, oleum, and other toxic substances without proper authorization and safety measures and were found to be releasing solid and liquid waste consisting of hazardous chemicals into the soil and groundwater. This situation made the water unfit for both drinking and irrigation, farmland was destroyed, and disease and deaths were spreading among the villagers. ¹³

The Supreme Court declared that the polluting industries would be responsible for compensation and, in this case, went ahead to implement the principles of the “Polluter Pays Principle” in India for the very first time.

It was a comprehensive ruling combining the shutdown of the violating installations, assigning misdemeanour liabilities that covered both environmental and medical aspects, and ordering money to be raised taking the total amount above ₹ 3.7 crores for the detoxification of the area as well as for the reimbursement of the victims. Moreover, this case constituted “Polluter Pays Principle” as one of the main features of Indian environmental law.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

The Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) case is a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence in India. The Supreme Court, for the first time, explicitly integrated concepts of sustainable development, the Precautionary Principle, and the Polluter Pays Principle into Indian law.

By doing so, the Court emphasized that economic growth must be balanced with ecological integrity. It held that industries cannot operate at the expense of public health and the environment, and mandated that polluters compensate both affected individuals and for ecological restoration. The judgment also directed the establishment of a special environmental authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and a “Green Bench” in the Madras High Court to exclusively deal with environmental matters.

This ruling marked a shift from mere regulatory enforcement to a rightsbased approach, recognizing the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It cemented the foundation of environmental jurisprudence in India, where environmental protection, ecological balance, and sustainable development guide legal and policy frameworks. ¹⁴

Doctrines Shaping Environmental Jurisprudence

The Indian judiciary has not only guaranteed environment rights but also established the landmark doctrines that provide guidance in environmental governance.

1. Polluter Pays Principle – This principle mandates that the cost of pollution should be paid by the polluter, and not the State or the community. Correspondingly, this principle has been invoked to cases of industrial pollution and discharge of toxic waste. ¹⁵
2. Precautionary Principle – If there is a possibility of serious environmental damage, the absence of scientific complete certainty should not be an excuse for postponing the preventive measures. Hence the onus is on the developer or the industry to provide the evidence that their activities have no negative impact on the environment. ¹⁶
3. Public Trust Doctrine – According to this idea, nature’s resources are not the properties of any individual but are the ones under the trust of the State to serve the public. This has been the legal basis for stopping the privatization and the exploitation (without permission) of rivers, forests, and coastal areas. ¹⁷
4. Intergenerational Equity – This principle outlines how, based on both moral and legal grounds, present generations should always ensure enough environmental resources will be available for use by future generations. With such language, it conveys the idea of environmental sustainability in the form of an obligation which is both ethical and legal.¹⁸

These principles, taken together, are the intellectual core of environmental justice in India.

Sustainable Development and Environmental Jurisprudence

 The idea of sustainable development was first acknowledged all over the world through the Brundtland Report of 1987,¹⁹ which defined it as a development that allows meeting current needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to satisfy their own. It was further endorsed by the Rio Conference of 1992 ²⁰and the passing of Agenda 21.

Sustainable development, recognized in the Brundtland Report (1987) and Rio Conference (1992), was upheld by the Indian Supreme Court in cases like Vellore Citizens (1996) and Narmada Bachao (2000),²¹ mandating EIAs, public hearings, and ecological safeguards to balance economic growth with the constitutional right to a clean environment.

Impacts of Expanding Article 21

The expansion of Article 21 to include environmental rights transformed ecology into a fundamental right. It empowered citizens and NGOs through PILs, compelled eco-friendly governance 22and industries,reinforced laws like the Environment Protection Act, and fostered public accountability, making environmental protection integral to constitutional freedoms and societal awareness.

Challenge and Criticism

 Nevertheless, environmental legal systems have to deal with serious obstacles even though there have been some advanced court decisions. Among these obstacles are poor execution of the law because of the slow-moving administrative system, environmental protection that is dominated by the economic interests of the business, and the insufficient measures taken against climate change. 23The accelerated process of industrialization and “development” with giant projects such as the construction of dams and mining will likely result in the displacement of the local people and damage to nature; at the same time, which is raising questions and concern about the idea of true sustainable development 24

Conclusion 

Environmental jurisprudence in India illustrates how Article 21 has been expanded to include the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the right to life. Through principles like Polluter Pays, Precautionary Principle, Public Trust Doctrine, and sustainable development, the judiciary has reshaped constitutional law to embed ecological protection within India’s democratic and developmental framework. 25

References

1 Constitution of India 1950, art 21.

2 Lavanya Rajamani, ‘The Precautionary Principle in Indian Environmental Law’ (2007) 22(4) Journal of Environmental Law 391.

3 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974.

4 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981.

5 Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 (expanding Article 21).

6 Constitution of India 1950, art 48A (inserted by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976).

7  Ibid, art 51A(g).

8 Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972).

9 Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598.

10 Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v State of U.P. 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169.

11 M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819

12 Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598.

13 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India 1996 AIR 1446, (1996) 3 SCC 212.

14 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

15 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996) 3 SCC 212.

16 Vellore Citizens (1996) 5 SCC 647

17  M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.

18 State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products (1995) 6 SCC 363.

19  World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press 1987).

20 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 1992 (‘Rio Declaration’)

21  Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664.

22 M.C. Mehta v UOI (Taj Trapezium Case) (1997) 2 SCC 353.

23 S Divan and A Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2001).

24 U Baxi, ‘The Environmental Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India’ (1994) 3 IELR 121.

25 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996) 3 SCC 212.