Assignment Submission

For

Continuous Evaluation II- PW II

Constitutional Law-I

2BL332

Reflective Note: Framing Reported Matters in the Language of Rights

Submitted to
Prof. Sukrit Garg
and
Prof. Shriys Bhojwani

Submitted by
21BAL241- Saubhagya
Newspaper Report-
Reflective Note: Analysing the approval of Vadhawan Port through the
lens of Article 21
Introduction
Many do argue that the sole of constitution lies in the fundamental rights that are provided
under the Constitution of India. These fundamental rights have been included in the
constitution because they were seen to be crucial for the development of each and every
individual. They ensure that every citizen of this country may live a life of peace and harmony
across the territory of India. All people have the right to file a case with the Supreme Court or
the High Court to have their rights upheld, regardless of their race, religion, caste, or sexual
orientation. Government of the country, accountable for these rights, often hinder them through
their action. The recent aprooval from the Union Cabinet has been obtained for the construction
of a sizable port at Vadhawan, close to Dahanu in Maharashtra. This caused public outrage and
questions of infringement of fundamental rights were raised, which shall be discussed below.

Issues

- With regards to the sudden approval of Vadhawan port research says that the proposed
Vadhawan Port may have impact on coastal fisheries in the environmentally sensitive
Dahanu taluka of the Palgarh district, the project will affect the livelihoods of at least
20,809 fishermen, representing 5,333 families, who live in 16 fishing villages within a 10-
kilometer radius of the port.1
- This will have impact on the livelihood of the residing fisherfolk, tribals, farmers and will
have a detrimental effect on environment (eco sensitive area).
- Thus, the Arguments of infringement of Article 21 is put forth in the present case.

Arguments

- Article 21, forbids the loss of the aforementioned rights unless done so in accordance with
a legal process. The Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American
Constitution, Article 40(4) of the Eire Constitution of 1937, and Article XXXI of the
Constitution of Japan from 1946 are all equivalent to Article 21.

1
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI),
- Furthermore, it is essential to democracy since it encompasses all natural beings, not just
citizens. Everyone has the right, whether they are a citizen or an alien. As a result, anybody
can assert this privilege.
- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.”
In accordance to Article 21 stated above, the article protect two rights a) Right to life and
b) Right to personal liberty. In the issue at hand we shall focus on one of them that is- Right
to life
- As ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It has
a much wider, including, including the right to live with human dignity, Right to livelihood,
Right to health, Right to pollution-free air, etc. all can come under the ambit of ‘Right to
Life’ 2
Livelihood
- The simplest approach to revoke someone's right to life would be to completely strip him
of all means of subsistence if the right to livelihood is not recognised as integral to the
constitutional right to life.
- With similar contentions, the court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation that
No one can exist without the means of subsistence, or the means of livelihood, hence the
"right to livelihood" arises from the "right to life."
- The ambit of livelihood further extend to trade, business and other works necessary for
maintaining a livelihood3.
- The Vadhwan port covering 5,000 acres of land, effects the day-to-day earning
activities(which includes fishing, negatively affected by the port and its industrial
activities). the people of Vadhavan and the surrounding coastal taluks depend on fishing
for a livelihood.
- Apart from them small-scale farming and die making is also effected.
- A rock shelf that extends to about 7 km into the sea from Vadhavan provides a prime area
for breeding as well as catching lobsters. The Government told that villagers will only lose
a rocky shelf. But that rocky shelf provides livelihood to about 5,000 fishing families.

2
Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579
3
Sodan Singh Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988
- The name "Shankhodar" for Vadhavan's coastline comes from Dahanu, one of the few sites
in India where live conches can be found. The sea's corals, moss, and rocks are ideal for
fish breeding as well as fishing.
- The right to a livelihood is severely hampered for the residents of Dhanu and the
neighbouring coastal areas since there has been no resettlement or reorganisation of
people's professional procedures

Environment
- Development in courts' proactive actions have allowed Indian law to expand the scope of
their basic right. For instance, Article 21's broad interpretation of the right to life. The right
to a healthy environment is one of the expanded basic rights that Indian courts now permit
the justices of the Supreme Court of India to uphold. 4
- According to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan
Khimalal Totame5, Article 21 guarantees the right to appropriate housing, food, clothing,
and living conditions. The right to a healthy environment was unquestionably
acknowledged as coming inside the reach of Article 21 in Virendra Gaur & Ors v.
State of Haryana.6 The court concluded that the enjoyment of life is a part of the right to
life guaranteed by Article 21 in this case. The environment must be protected and
preserved, ecological balance must be maintained, pure air and water must be available,
and proper sanitary conditions must be provided if people are to experience life to the
fullest.
- The Court found that Delhi's blatant and widespread exploitation of residential premises
for commercial purposes violated the right to a wholesome and decent environment in
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.7The Court noticed the problem and alerted the
government about it.
- Looking at the history of Vadhwan port, it was first denied by the Dahanu Taluka
Environment Protection Authority on September 19, 1998. (DTEPA).
- DTEPA- a 1996 Supreme Court-appointed body set up to regulate industrial and other
activities that could pose a threat to the Dahanu eco-sensitive zone (ESZ), officially
declared “ecologically fragile” in 1991.

4
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
5
Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630
6
Virendra Gaur & Ors v. State of Haryana.
7
M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1086
- When a vulnerable species is preserved in its natural habitat, such as the one-horned
rhinoceros of Assam's Kaziranga National Park, ESZs encourage in-situ conservation.
- After weighing the views of villagers and environmentalists, the DTEPA came to the
decision that developing a port in Vadhavan would be "wholly unacceptable and unlawful."
Under the direction of its former chairwoman, retired high court judge Justice
Dharmadhikari, this stance was reaffirmed in 2017.
- However, the MoEFCC in 2019 “reclassified” the list of regulated activities in the Dahanu
taluka ESZ to allow the construction of ports and harbours.
- The Union Cabinet received preliminary clearance for the port's development in February
2020. The port is permitted in the taluka, the MoEF notified the DTEPA (DAHANU
TALUKA ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY) in June after it objected to
the proposal.
- However, contention stays that the survey done was illegal as team of five people—two of
them scientists—could not finish its job without informing Vadhavan's Gram Panchayat,
which in 2014 adopted a resolution against the proposed port. The protestors contend that
the poll should have been authorised by the DTEPA, which was set up in 1996 in
compliance with orders from the Supreme Court.

Person of Inherence and Person of Incidence

- According to Salmond- “The Person of Inherence: A person must be the owner or possessor
of the right in order for it to exist as a legal right. The object of the legal right is him. An
indeterminate person is not required to be the owner of a right.”
- Under Article 21, right is given to both foreigner and citizen. Here in the residents being
citizen are the person of Inherence.
- The incorporation of Article 32 into the Constitution, which guarantees constitutional
remedies for their enforcement as a distinct right, has assisted in firmly establishing the
protection of fundamental rights.
- Again in accordance to Salmond- The person of incident is simply a term used to describe
someone who has been bound by law. A legal claim is made against a person or people
who owe that person or people a responsibility to respect that claim. Such a person is
referred to as the person of incidence or the duty subject.
- Article 21 can be claimed against public authority. Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change of India is the government authority which gave permission for the
development of the port in the area.Thus making them the person of incidence.
- One can have a greater understanding of the people affected by Part III of the constitution
by looking at the method for enshrining fundamental rights, the inclusive definition of State
under Article 12, and the particular provisions of Part III.

Conclusion

The residents and workers of the Dahanu village and the nearby coastal area would be
negatively affected by commencement of the Vadhawan port which got approved by the
MoEFCC. Their fundamental right of livelihood and healthy environment being at stake.
Although the terms of Article 21 were initially rather limited, they progressively grew and were
given a more open-minded interpretation. With a number of significant judgements, new
dimensions and scope have occasionally been added to Article 21. The Indian judiciary has
expanded the meaning of Article 21 to include a variety of rights. Thus, Article 21 defends the
people's rights as a powerful tool.