Introduction
In India, air pollution has become extreme and may only get worse unless some remedial action is adopted. The rising rates of air pollution are dangerous to the health of the population, and they result in various respiratory and airways diseases, the majority of which are not identified and untreated.
Rapid industrialisation, urban sprawl, increased vehicular emissions, and poor waste disposal have significantly contributed to air, water, and noise pollution in the nation.
Despite the common understanding that pollution is an environmental or social health problem, Indian constitutional jurisprudence has categorically defined pollution as a matter of basic rights.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that protects the right to life and personal liberty is also invoked because pollution directly affects the health, dignity, and the quality of life of people.
The judiciary over the time especially the Supreme Court of India has broadened Article 21 to incorporate the right to a healthy environment and clean air.
This article examines the judicial emergence concerning environmental rights, the increased pollution in the country and the constitutional foundation of environmental protection in India.
Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection
The Indian Constitution does not specifically guarantee a pollution-free environment. Nonetheless, such a right has emerged through the joint interpretation of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and Fundamental Duties.
According to some interpretations, Article 21 refers to more than only physical existence. It involves the right to a dignified life, which inevitably entails having access to safe drinking water, clean air, and a healthy environment.
The Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment established Article 48A, which instructs the State to preserve forests, wildlife, and the environment. Furthermore, every person is required by Article 51A(g) to preserve and enhance the natural environment.
Together, these clauses create a thorough constitutional framework for environmental preservation by imposing obligations on both the State and people.
Judicial Expansion of Article 21 and Environmental Rights
The judiciary has played a major role in enabling the recognition of environmental preservation as a fundamental aspect of the right to life.
The Supreme Court of India has often ruled that environmental degradation is a flagrant violation of Article 21.
Landmark Judicial Pronouncements
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar – The Supreme Court held that access to clean water and air is a component of the right to life. This decision marked a significant breakthrough in the relationship between environmental protection and fundamental rights.
- MC Mehta v. Union of India – The Court addressed industrial pollution through public interest litigation and imposed directions to protect the environment and public health.
The establishment of important legal doctrines has boosted Indian environmental jurisprudence.
Environmental Principles Developed Through Judicial Interpretation
Even in the absence of scientific certainty, the State and statutory authorities are required by the Precautionary Principle to take preventive action when environmental harm is expected.
The Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India established the Polluter Pays Principle, which requires the polluting party to pay for any environmental harm and corrective actions.
Sustainable Development, which was upheld in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, is another important idea. The Court ruled that the requirements of the present must be balanced with the interests of future generations and that progress cannot occur at the expense of environmental damage.
Increasing Pollution and Current Constitutional Issues
In many regions of the Country, pollution is getting worse despite a strong judicial and constitutional structure.
- Urban air pollution
- Industrial effluent contamination of aquatic bodies
- Rising noise pollution
All have detrimental effects on environmental sustainability and public health. Because they make it more difficult to effectively exercise the right to life protected by Article 21, these situations give rise to constitutional issues.
Rather than a lack of legislative requirements, the persistence of pollution reveals flaws in implementation, regulatory monitoring, and administrative enforcement.
The discrepancy between the goals of the Constitution and the realities on the ground continues to be a significant obstacle.
Challenges in Enforcement of Environmental Rights
One of the primary challenges in addressing pollution is weak enforcement of environmental laws.
- Regulatory bodies frequently struggle with a lack of enough funding
- Inefficient monitoring systems
- Policy decisions influenced by the tension between environmental preservation and economic development
Even if judicial action has been essential in defending environmental rights, an over-reliance on the courts may give rise to questions about judicial overreach and the separation of powers.
In the end, concerted action by the legislative, executive, judicial, and public sectors is necessary for effective environmental preservation.
Conclusion
The increasing pollution in India has become a great danger to the constitutional right of life in Article 21.
The right to a clean and healthy environment has evolved into a crucial aspect of human dignity due to legal interpretation.
However, without responsible administration and efficient enforcement, even acknowledging this right is insufficient.
Upholding constitutional ideals and ensuring sustainable development require a balanced strategy that balances environmental protection with developmental objectives.
In addition to being required by law, environmental protection is a shared constitutional duty.
References
- Constitution of India
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
- MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC
