Brief Notes on Different Topics of Unit-1

Note: It contains notes on Constitutional Provisions as well.

 VARIOUS ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENTS

• The Bishnoi Movement In the 1700s, in Khejarli, in the Marwar region of Rajasthan, trees were ordered to be cleared for a new palace to
be built. One of the villagers, Amrita Devi, could not bear to witness such an exploitation of the floral habitation. To stop the
deforestation, she hugged the trees, while also encouraging others to do the same. More than 360 Bishnoi villagers were martyred in this
movement.
• The Chipko and Appiko Movements
• Started in 1973, the main objective of the Chipko movement was to protect the trees from the axes of forest contractors.

This movement enlightened the villagers about the importance of trees, telling them how they prevent soil erosion and benefit the
environment with rain and purified water. The main demand of the protests was that the trees should not be cut as they benefit the locals.
The Chipko movement garnered publicity in 1978 when a few women had to face police brutalities.
The then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna set up a committee to look into the matter, which eventually ruled in
the favour of the villagers. The event went on to become an example for all future environmental movements across the world.
• Similarly, Uttara Kannada and Shimoga districts of Karnataka saw a southern version of the Chipko movement, known as the Appiko
movement or Appiko Chaluvali. The movement used various methods to raise awareness such as foot marches in the interior forest, slide
shows, folk dances, street plays etc.
•Save Silent Valley Movement
Silent Valley is a tropical area in Kerala which is rich in biodiversity. In 1978, however, the lush evergreen cover was to be
deforested for the construction of a hydroelectric dam across the Kunthipuzha river by the Kerala State Electricity Board
(KSEB).

The locals feared that the project would submerge at least 8.3 square kilometres of the green cover around the dam area.
Several NGOs opposed the project, and urged the government to abandon it. Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP), an NGO,
and the poet-activist Sughatha kumari played an important role in the Silent Valley protests In January 1981, the government
relentlessly gave in to the demands of the population and called off the project. They declared the Silent Valley as a protected
area.
Jungle Bachao Andolan
In 1982, in the Singhbhum district of Bihar, the state government had decided to replace the natural Sal forests with the highly-
priced teakwood trees. The tribals of Singhbhum protested this decision. The movement was called by many environmentalists
as ‘Greed Game Political Populism’. It later spread into the states of Jharkhand and Odisha.

Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) Led by Medha Patkar with the support of Arundhati Roy, Baba Amte, and Aamir Khan,
along with the adivasis, farmers, environmentalists, and human rights activists, the Narmada Bachao Andolan took place in the
year 1985.
 Five- Year Plans And Environment
• Though the planned economic development in India began in 1951 with the inception of First Five
Year Plan , theoretical efforts had begun much earlier , even prior to the independence. Setting up of
National Planning Committee by Indian National Congress in 1938
• After independence, India launched its First FYP in (1951–1956)
• Second Plan (1956–1961)
• Third Plan (1961–1966)
• Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-70 to 1973-74)
• Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79)
• Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85)
• Seventh Plan (1985-90)
• Eighth Five Year Plan (1992-97)
• Ninth Plan(1997-2002)
• The Tenth plan (2002-2007)
• The Eleventh plan (2007-2012)
• The Twelfth Plan (2012-2017)
• The Indian Constitution, as adopted in 1950, did not deal with that the subject of environment or
prevention and control of pollution as such (until 1976 Amendment)
• Only provision which was of some significance was Article 47 of the Directive Principles of State Policy
which reads : “The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and standard of living of its
people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties.”
• Article 21 of the Constitution which deals with the right to life and personal liberty was not of much help
in the beginning as it was given a very restricted and narrow meaning. This Article runs as follows: “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
• But in due course of time the problem of pollution and environment started drawing attention of
environmentalists. In the year 1972 our Prime Minister late Mrs. Indira Gandhi attended the United
Nations Conference on Human Environment and Development at Stockholm. In that conference the
following two resolutions were passed which are known as the Magna Carta of our environmental law:
(a) Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment
of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being; and (b) Man bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.
 • Stockholm Conference
• The UN Conference on Human Environment and Development held at Stockholm and
‘Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment’ 1972 has the significant impact on
Indian Environment Law. It is considered as magna carta of Environmental law and it has
same parallel significance as Universal Declaration on the Human Right, 1948. In this
conference, twenty-six principles were laid down.
• The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm
from 5 to 16 June 1972,having considered the need for a common outlook and for
common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and
enhancement of the human environment,
• The Stockholm Conference was a watershed in the international environmental movement
- it put environmental issues on the international agenda for the first time.
• It was Sweden which had first proposed the idea of a UN Conference on the Human
Environment (UNCHE) in 1968. Acid rain, coupled with global consequences of the fall-
out from nuclear tests in the 1950s, had brought home the message that humanity had
"only one earth". 
• India has played a leading role from 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm to 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janerio and also in the Earth summit Plus 5 of 1997 at
New York. India is therefore under an obligation to translate the contents and decisions of the international
conferences, treaties & agreements into the stream of its national laws. Article 51 (c) states that “the state shall
endeavor to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with
one another.”
• Parliament has made use of this power to enact Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Preambles of both the laws clearly indicate that that these laws were
enacted to implement the decisions reached at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment held at
Stockholm in 1972. The objectives of the international agreements can only be achieved if all the relevant
countries become parties to them. India is a signatory to a number of international treaties and agreements
relating to regional and sometimes global environmental issues
• Article 253 of the Constitution empowers the parliament “to make any laws for the whole or any part of the
territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country / countries/ any
decision made by any international conference, association or other body.”
• Part XI of the Constitution of India regulates the legislative and administrative
relations between the Union and the States . Article 245 empowers the
Parliament to make laws on the subjects mentioned in Union List, whereas
State Legislatures have the power to legislate for their respective states.
• Entries13 and 14 of the Union list includes items on which parliament can
make laws provides “participation in international conferences, associations
and other bodies, implementing of decisions made thereat.” and “entering into
treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties,
agreements and conventions with foreign countries.”
• Thus, Article 253 is read with entries 13 & 14 of the Union list, we can
conclude that the parliament can pass any law including laws on
environmental protection and the same cannot be challenged before the courts
on the ground that the Parliament lacks legislative competency to do so. These
provisions served as potent weapons in the armory of the courts to uphold any
parliamentary legislation if it is in pursuance of Article 253 read with entries
13 & 14 of the Union list.
 People’s union for civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433
• The SC held that the provisions of the International Covenant , which
elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our
Constitution can certainly be relied upon by courts as facets of those FR
and hence enforceable as such.
• Since India is a signatory to various international agreements and
understandings in the field of environment , important principles has
become part of domestic law.
• Thus, the Indian Constitution puts an obligation and authorizes our
parliament to implement the decision of any international treaty,
agreement or convention with other country or other associated bodies.
 FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES
• The basic motive behind the fundamental duties is to inculcate a sense of responsibility among the people and
to promote their participation in restructuring and building a welfare society. The protection of the
environment is a constitutional priority and it is the concern of every citizen. The 42nd Amendment in 1976
added a new part IV- A dealing with Fundamental Duties in the Constitution of India. Article 51-A of this part
enlists 11 fundamental duties. This part was added on the recommendations of the Swarn Singh Committee
bringing the Constitution of India in line with Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Article 51-A (g) specifically deals with the fundamental duty with respect to environment. It provides: It shall
be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests,
lakes, rivers and wildlife, and also to have compassion for living creatures.
• Article 51-A (j) further provides: It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to strive towards excellence in
all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher level of endeavor
and achievements.
• Thus the Indian Constitution makes two fold provision. (a) On the one hand, it gives directive to the State for
the protection and improvement of environment. (b) On the other hand the citizen owe a constitutional duty
to protect and improve natural environment.
• The fundamental duty of every citizen is not only to protect the
environment from any kind of pollution but also to improve the
environmental quality if it has been polluted. Thus, the underlined
emphasis of this fundamental duty is that every citizen has a duty to
make an endeavour to preserve the environment in the same way as it
was given to us by nature. Now, we come to the question of ensuring the
compliance of these fundamental duties. When they were incorporated in
the Constitution in the year 1976, it was considered that the fundamental
law of the land reminds the citizens of their constitutional obligations.
They cannot be directly enforced. However, in due course of time, the
judicial activism provides an impetus to achieve the underlined
objectives of the fundamental duties, particularly, Article 51-A (g)
relating to the environment.
• The true scope of Art.51-A(g) has been best explained by Rajasthan
High Court in the case of L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan,AIR
1988 Raj. 2 , a simple writ petition by citizens of Jaipur compelled the
municipal authorities under The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 to
provide adequate sanitation. Mr. Koolwal moved the High Court under
Art 226 and highlighted that municipality has failed to discharge its
duty. The court allowed the petition and observed that when every
citizen owes a constitutional duty to protect the environment
(Art.51A), the citizen must be also entitled to enlist the court’s aid in
enforcing that duty against State agencies. The Court gave the
administration six month to clean up the entire city, and dismissed the
plea of lack of funds and staff.
• The Court also pointed out that the right and duty co-exist.
 Directive Principles of state policy
• Articles 36-51 under Part-IV of Indian Constitution deal with Directive Principles of
State Policy (DPSP). They are borrowed from the constitution of Ireland which had
copied it from the Spanish Constitution. 
• The Sapru Committee in 1945 suggested two categories of individual rights. One being
justiciable and the other being non-justiciable rights. The justiciable rights, as we
know, are the Fundamental rights, whereas the non-justiciable ones are the Directive
Principles of State Policy.
• DPSP are ideals which are meant to be kept in mind by the state when it formulates
policies and enacts laws. There are various definitions to Directive Principles of State
which are given below:
• They are an ‘instrument of instructions’ which are enumerated in Government of India
Act, 1935
• They seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country
• DPSPs are ideals which are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation
• They are the principles that aim at providing social and economic justice and set the
path towards the welfare state. 
• Article 37 of the constitution provides: The provisions contained in part
IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid
down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country
and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making
laws. The court cannot directly enforce the directive principles by
compelling the state to apply them in making the law but only when the
state commits a breach of its duty by acting in a way which is contrary
to these principles.
• The directive principle serves the courts as a code of interpretation.
They now stand as elevated to inalienable fundamental human rights.
Articles 47 and 48-A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the
state to secure the health of the people or to, improve public health and
to protect and improve the environment.
• Article 47 of the Constitution is one of the directive principles of State
policy and it provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level
of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the
improvement of health as its primary duties.
• The improvement of public health also includes protection and
improvement of the environment without which public health cannot
be assured.
• The 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976 added a new
directive principle in Article 48-A, dealing specifically with the
conservation and improvement of the environment. It goes as under:
The state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
 Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B AIR 1987 SC 1109
• Interference by the Supreme Court with the policy decision of government, whenever a
problem of ecology is brought before it, extent of-Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 32,
48A, 51A(g)--Whether the Government of West Bengal was not alive to the ecological
considerations, particularly the question of the migratory birds and whether has shown such
lack of awareness in making an allotment of land to boost tourism by construction of Five
Star Hotel to the detriment of Zoological garden.
• Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in
mind Art. 48 A and Art. 51A(g) .
• When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental
duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and
so it is matter for the policy making authority. The least that the court may do is to examine
whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate
cases, the Court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of
the case. The court may always give necessary directions. However the Court will not attempt
to nicely balance relevant considerations When the question involves the nice balancing of
relevant considerations, the court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the
decision of the concerned authority. If the Government is alive to the various considerations
requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them
into account, it may not be for the court to interfere in the absence of mala fides.
 Kinkri Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1988 H.P
• Petitioners have sought cancellation of mining lease for excavation of limestone as it posed danger to adjoining land,
water resources, pastures, ecology and environment and sought compensation for damage This is the first case of its kind
in the State of Himachal Pradesh involving issues relating to the environment and ecological balance, based on
sustainable development criteria. The Supreme Court had already highlighted the gravity of the problem and the
necessity of regulatory measures being undertaken so as to bring about a proper balance between the conservation of
natural resources and the protection of the environment and the ecology on one hand and the need for development and
of the industrial growth of the country on the other.
•  To ensure the attainment of the constitutional goal of the protection and improvement of the natural wealth and
environment and of the safeguarding of the forests, the lakes, the rivers and the wildlife and to protect the people
inhabiting the vulnerable areas from the hazardous consequences of the arbitrary exercise of the power of granting
mining leases and of indiscriminate operation of the mines on the strength of such leases without due regard to their life,
liberty and property, the Court, considering that the need for judicial intervention may not arise even in those cases
where the court's jurisdiction is invoked, if the administration takes preventive, remedial and curative measures
meanwhile. It directed the constitution of a committee to examine the question whether the grant of mining leases in
respect of lime-stone is in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and the above mentioned principles, to
recommend a long-term plan and/or scheme for the grant of mining leases in the State in light of all the relevant and
material factors and suggest the preventive, curative and regulatory measures and machinery in order to ensure that the
mining leases are operated in a scientific manner and for repair of such damage, further directed respondent to stop
all mining activities in area leased to him till further Order and no mining lease shall be granted till committee submits
its report.
 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

• Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration finds reflection in Art 14,19 and 21 of the
Constitution dealing with right to equality, freedom of expression and right to life. ‘Man has
the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an
environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations’.
• The permanent people’s tribunal regards the anti-humanitarian effects of industrial and
environmental hazards not as an unavoidable part of the existing industrial system, but
rather as a pervasive and organized violation of the most fundamental rights of humanity.
Most important among these are the right to life, health, expression, association and access
to justice. All these rights are present in Part III of the Indian constitution which deals with
the fundamental rights. A constitutional provision is never static it is ever evolving and ever
changing and, therefore, never admit of a narrow, pedantic or syllogistic approach
• The fundamental rights are intended to serve one generation after another.
The provisions of part III and part IV dealing with fundamental rights and
directive principles respectively are supplementary and complementary to
each other. The basic idea behind fundamental rights is to achieve the goals
mentioned in directive principles and must be construed in the light of the
directive principles. A right can be recognized as a fundamental right even
though it is not expressly mentioned in the constitution. Thus, we can say
that there are many unenumerated fundamental rights in Part III and
judicial activism in India has taken a lead in interpreting various
unenumerated rights in Part III of the Constitution. Environment protection
is one of them. Specific provisions are only provided in the part dealing
with Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, yet right to live in a
healthy environment has been interpreted by the judiciary into various
provisions of Part III dealing with fundamental rights. Thus, the judiciary
in India has provided impetus to the Human Rights approach for the
protection of the environment.
• Article 21 guarantees a fundamental right to life- a life of dignity, to be lived in a proper
environment, free of danger of disease and infection. We all are aware of the fact that there
exists a close link between life and environment. The right to life would be meaningless if
there was no healthy environment. The judicial interpretation has made Right to live in a
healthy environment as the sanctum sanctorum of Human Rights
• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597, the Supreme Court while
elucidating on the importance of the ‘right to life’ under Art. 21 held that the right to life is
not confined to mere animal existence, but extends to the right to live with the basic
human dignity (Bhagwati J.) (Right to wholesome environment)
• In Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746), Justice Bhagwati
observed: We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and
all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition,
clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself
in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and co-mingling with fellow human
beings.
• In the year 2012, the then Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jayanthi
Natarajan suggested that the right to a wholesome environment is a fundamental right and
needs to be safeguarded.
• The right connotes that the enjoyment of life and its attainment and
fulfillment guaranteed by Article 21 embraces the protection and
preservation of nature’s gift without which life cannot be enjoyed. The
Supreme Court of India, in 1980, indirectly conceived this right in a
monumental judgement in the case of Ratlam Municipality v.
Vardichand 1980 AIR 1622
• In this case the Bench of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice
Chinnappa Reddy held the neglect of sanitation of the town of Ratlam
by Municipal Council caused Health hazard.
• The first indication of recognizing the right to live in a healthy environment as a part of article 21 was
evident from the case of Rural litigation & Entitlement kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P AIR 1985
SC 652
• This case is also famously known as the ‘Dehradun Valley litigation’ or ‘doon valley case’. In
Mussoorie hill range of Himalayas, the activity of quarrying was being carried out. Limestone was
extracted by blasting out the hills with dynamite. This also resulted in cave-ins and slumping because
the mines dug deep into the hillsides, which is an illegal practice per se.
• Due to lack of vegetation, many landslides occurred which killed villagers and destroyed their homes,
cattle and agricultural lands. In 1961, mining was prohibited in the state by the state minister of mines.
However, quarry operations reopened the mining operations by successfully lobbying with the chief
Minister of the state under which they got mining leases for 20 years. This led to corrupt and illegal
practices and still there was no enforcement of safety rules.
• In 1982, eighteen leases came up for renewal, which were rejected by the State on account of the
ecological destruction. However, an injunction was granted by the Allahabad High Court which allowed
the applicants to continue mining, giving the reason that economic benefits outweighed ecological
factors.
• In 1983, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra sent a letter of complaint to the Supreme Court
which was against environmental degradation. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition under
article 32. More than 100 mines joined this.
• In 1983, the Court prohibited blasting operations, while it was reviewing to
determine whether the mines were being operated in compliance with the safety
standards as laid down in the Mines Act of 1952 and other relevant mining
regulations. The Court appointed an expert committee (the Bhargava Committee)
to assess the mines. In March 1985, the court denied leases to the most dangerous
mines falling within Mussoorie city and ceased their operations. This was done
upon the recommendation of the Bhargava Committee. The second committee (the
Bandyopadhyay Committee) was empowered to consider plans submitted by the
miners to safeguard the environment and to hear the claims of people adversely
affected by the mining. The Uttar Pradesh government was directed to provide the
necessary funds for the Bandyopadhyay Committee as well as ‘transport and other
facilities for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions.
• The Court restated the conclusion that mining activity should only be permitted to
the extent it is necessary in the interests of the defence of the country and
safeguarding of the foreign exchange position. In 1988, the Court concluded that
all the mines in Dehradun Valley should remain closed, except three
operations.
• M.C Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 ( OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE)- The
court impliedly treated the right to live in pollution free environment as part of
fundamental right to life u/art 21 of constitution.
• A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, he sought closure for
Shriram Industries as it was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and
located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was pending, on
4th and 6th December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one of its units
which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The
incident took place on December 4, 1985.
• Just after one year from the Bhopal gas disaster a large number of persons – both
amongst the workmen and public were affected. This incident also reminded of the
Bhopal gas holocaust. M.C Mehta filed a PIL under Articles 21 and 32 of the
Constitution and sought closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and
Sulphuric Acid Plant which was located in a thickly populated area of Delhi.
• Factories were closed down immediately as Inspector of Factories and Commissioner
(Factories) issued separate orders dated December 8 and 24, 1985 . This incident took
place only a few months before Environment (Protection) Act came into force, thus
became a guiding force for having an effective law like this.
• Issues -:
1.Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas
2.If they are allowed to work in such areas, whether any regulating mechanism be evolved.
3.Liability and amount of compensation how to be determined.

• Chief Justice Bhagwati showed his deep concern for the safety of the people of the Delhi
from the leakage of hazardous substances like the one here – oleum gas. He was of the
opinion that we cannot adopt the policy to do away with chemical or hazardous industries
as they also help to improve the quality of life, as in this case this factory, was supplying
chlorine to Delhi Water Supply Undertaking which is used to maintain the wholesomeness
of drinking water. Thus industries even if hazardous have to be set up since they are
essential for economic development and advancement of well being of the people.
• "We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all
necessary steps for locating such industries in a manner which would pose least risk of
danger to the community and maximizing safety requirements in such industries "
• Thus the Supreme Court was of the opinion that total ban on the above industry of public
utility will impede the developmental activities.
• It was also observed that permanent closure of the factory would result in the unemployment of 4000 workers
and add to social problem of poverty. Therefore the court made an order to open the factory temporarily subject
to eleven conditions and appointed an expert committee to monitor the working of the industry.
• The court also suggested that a national policy will have to be evolved by the Government for the location of
toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have to be taken in regard of relocation of such industries with
a view to eliminate risk to the community.
1.The Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to inspect and see that pollution standards set under
the Water Act and Air Act to be followed.
2.To constitute Worker's Safety Committee
3.Industry to publicise the effects of chlorine and its appropriate treatment
4.Instruct and train its workers in plant safety through audio visual programme, install loudspeaker to alert
neighbors in the event of leakage of gas
5.Workers to use safety devices like masks and belts
6.And that the workers of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM Limited, that in case of escape
of gas resulting in death or injury to workmen or people living in vicinity they will be "personally responsible "
for payment of compensation of such death or injury
• The Court also directed that Shriram industries would deposit Rs 20 lakhs
and to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 15 lakhs for payment of
compensation claims of the victims of oleum gas if there was any escape
of chlorine gas within three years from the date of order resulting in death
or injury to any workmen or public in the vicinity . The quantum of
compensation was determinable by the District Judge , Delhi .It also
shows that the court made the industry "absolutely liable " and
compensation has to be paid. 
• Further the industries cannot absolve itself of the responsibility by
showing either that that they were not negligent in dealing with the
hazardous substance or they took all the necessary and reasonable
precautions while dealing with it. Thus the court applied the principle of
no – fault liability in this case .
• M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 256
• The SC took note of the env. Pollution due to stone crushing activities
in and around Delhi, Faridabad, Ballabgarh. The Court was conscious
that environmental changes were inevitable consequences of industrial
development but at the same time the quality of env. Cannot be
permitted to be damaged by polluting the air, water, land to such an
extent that it becomes a health hazard for the people. The court stated
that “every citizen has a right to clean air and to live in a pollution free
environment’. The SC treated it as a violation of Article 21 and passed
an order directing the stone crushing units to stop their activities in
Delhi, Faridabad and Ballabgarh. The court ordered the govt. to
rehabilitate these stone crushers in crushing zone within the period of
six months.
• In Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 3 SCC 212 (the Bichhri
pollution case), following the decision in the Oleum Gas leak case and based on the
polluter pays principle, the polluting industries were directed to compensate for the harm
caused by them to the villagers in the affected areas, specially to the soil and to the
underground water
• In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598, The petition was filed
by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar for preventing the pollution of
the water of the river Bokaro from the discharge of sludge/slurry from the washeries of
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for maintaining the wholesomeness of
water and for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution Control Board was
constituted for the implementation of the functions provided in Section 17 of the said Act,
the Board is advised to inspect the trade effluents and plants for the treatment of sewage
and to review data and specifications for the treatment of water.
• It was alleged by the Petitioner that the waste in form of slurry is discharged as effluent in the Bokaro
River from the washeries which get deposited on the bed of the River and get settled on the land
including Plot No.170 which is Petitioner’s land. He also said that the sludge so discharged gets
absorbed on the agricultural land leaving a fine film of carboniferous. He further alleges that the
discharge of the sludge from the washeries also pollute the water as a result of which the water cannot
be used for irrigation purposes or drinking.
• He has, accordingly, claimed relief for the issue of direction directing the Respondents which include the
State of Bihar, the Bihar Pollution Control Board, Union of India and Tata Iron & Steel Co., to take
immediate steps prohibiting the pollution of the Bokaro river water from the discharge of slurry into the
Bokaro river and to take further action under provisions of the Act against the Tata Iron & Steel Co. The
Court in the present case held that the present petition was not filed keeping in view the public interest
rather it is filed for self-interest. It was noted by the court that the materials on record show that petition
was filed in the personal interest, keeping in view the facts the Court dismissed the present petition.
• Justice K. N. Singh and Justice N. D. Ojha held : “Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has a right to have resource to Article 32 of the
Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may deteriorate the quality of life.
• In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180) the Supreme Court observed An important facet of
Article 21 is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.
If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his
right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation…. That which alone makes it
possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life.
1.the state of Maharashtra in 1981 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict the pavement dwellers and those
who were residing in slums in Bombay.
2.Pursuant to that, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Mr A. R. Antulay ordered on July 13 to evict slum dwellers and
pavement dwellers out of Bombay and to deport them to their place of origin.
3.the respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
4.The council on the applicant’s behalf argued that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 included the right to a means of
subsistence and that he would be deprived of his livelihood if he were expelled from his slums. and its sidewalks, which
would amount to a deprivation of his rights. life and therefore unconstitutional.
5.The right to life conferred by art 21 is vast and far-reaching. It does not simply mean that life can
be extinguished or removed only in accordance with the procedure established by law. This is just
one aspect of the right to life. The right to livelihood is an equally important aspect of this right
because no one can live without means of subsistence.
 N. D Jayal v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 362
• The SC while considering various issues of tehri dam project
observed that the oustees and displaced persons from the tehri dam
area have a right under Art 21 to lead a decent life and earn livelihood
in rehabilitated locations. The rehabilitation is not only about
providing just food, clothes or shelter. It is also about extending
support to rebuild livelihood ensuring necessity amenities of life.
Accordingly, it was directive that rehabilitation of oustees, which is a
natural corollary of art 21 , should takes place within 6 months before
submergence of the area.
• The position of forest dwellers rights on land prior to the enactment of Recognition of Forest Rights Act, 2006 can be
summed up based on decision of the court in Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 374 The Supreme
Court of India accepted a letter written to the Court as writ petition in Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. The
Supreme Court had to consider issues relating to the claim to land and related rights of the Adivasis living within Dudhi
and Robertsganj Tehsils in the District of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh. The State Government declared a part of these
lands in the two Tehsils as reserved forest as provided under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, and in regard to the
other areas notification under Section 4 of the Act was made and proceedings for final declaration of those areas also as
reserved forests were undertaken. Adivasis and other backward people living within the forest used the forest area as
their habitat. They had raised several villages within these two Tehsils and for generations had been using the forests
around for collecting the requirements for their livelihood. The Tribals had converted certain lands around their villages
into cultivable fields and had also been raising crops for their food. These lands too were included in the notified areas
and, therefore, attempt of the Adivasis to cultivate these lands too was resisted

• While the matter is pending before the Court, Government has decided that a Super Thermal Plant of the National
Thermal Power Corporation Limited (‘NTPC’) would be located in a part of these lands and acquisition proceedings
were initiated. The SC gave detailed directions safeguarding the interests of the ‘adivasis’ who were being ousted from
their forest land by NTPC. The court permitted the acquisition of land only after NTPC agree to provide certain
facilities to the ousted forest dwellers. NTPC has agreed before the Court that it shall strictly follow the policy on
“facilities to be given to land trustees” .
• Though the court didn’t make any reference to art 21 but the court was impliedly treating the rights of the adivasis
under this Article 21.
• Although the expression ‘environment’ has not been expressly mentioned
in the Constitution, there are many items in the legislative lists, which
enable the Centre and the states to make law in the field of environment.
It took a long time for the apex court to pronounce explicitly that the right
to life under art 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live in a
healthy environment.
• Seventh Schedule of the Constitution : (1) In the concurrent list, 42nd
Amendment inserted. (a) Entry 17-A, providing for forests. (b) Entry 17-
B, for the protection of wild animals and birds. (c) Entry 20-A, providing
for population control and family planning.
• Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution (1) This new schedule is added by
the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, which received the assent of
the President on 20.4.1993. This schedule has 8 entries (2,3,6,7,11,12,15
and 29) providing for environmental protection and conservation.
• Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution (1) The entry number 8 of this schedule
added to the constitutional text by the 74 Amendment Act, 1992, which
received the assent of the President on 20.4.1993 provided for the Urban
Local bodies with the function of environment and promotion of ecological
aspect to them.
• List I (Union List) Entries 52. Industries 53. Regulation and development of
oil fields and mineral oil/resources. 54. Regulation of mines and mineral
development. 55. Regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river
valleys. 56. Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters.
• List II (State List) Entries 6. Public health and sanitation. 14. Agriculture
protection against past and prevention of plant diseases. 18. Land
colonization etc. 21. Fisheries. 23. Regulation of Mines and Mineral
development subject to the provisions of 24. Industries
• List III (Common or Concurrent List) Entries 17-A Forests. 17-B Protection
and wild animals and birds. 20. Economic and social planning. 20A
Population control and family planning.
 Fundamental freedom of speech and expression

• Article 19 (1)(a) guarantees every citizen a fundamental freedom of

speech and expression. In India, most of the environmental jurisprudence
has developed by judicial activism. Most of the cases came before the
court as a result of public interest litigation in which people exercised
their right of freedom of speech and expression highlighting the violation
of the right of people to live in a healthy environment.
• Freedom of speech and expression also includes freedom of press. In
India , public opinion and media have played an important role in
molding the public perception of environmental issues.
• The use of freedom of speech and expression by Kerala sastra sahitya
parishad , NGO and influential environmentalists and the role of the media
compelled the government to abandon ‘silent valley project’.
• In Moulana Mufti Syed Mohammed Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of
West Bengal AIR 1999 Ker 15: the Calcutta high court observed that
excessive noise is certainly a pollution in the society. Under art 19(1)(a) read
with art 21, the citizens have a right to decent environment and they have a
right to live peacefully , right to sleep at night which are all ingredients of
right to life.
 Right to know
• Right to know is implicit under article 19 (1)(a) and has a close link
with article 21. The right to know or access to information is the basic
right . The right to know plays a very imp. Role in env. Matters. Any
govt. plan or construction plan or information of the proposed location
of nuclear power stations, or thermal power plants and hazardous
industries, which directly affect the life and heath of people of that
area must be widely published. In this regard, Brundtland Report has
rightly observed that:
• In the case S.P Gupta v. union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, The SC
recognised the right to know to be implicit in the right to freedom of
speech and expression.
• IN R.P Ltd v. Proprietors, Indian Express newspapers, Bombay pvt.
Ltd. , The SC held that we must remember that the people at large
have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory
development in the industrial life and democracy.
• In Bombay Environmental Action Group v. Pune Cantonment
(unreported case- w.p no. 2733 of 1986)
 Freedom of Trade and Commerce and Environmental Protection 

• All the citizens of India have a fundamental right to carry on any profession or business, trade
or commerce at any place within the territory of India under Article 19 (1)(g) of the
Constitution. But this is not an absolute right and thus, has reasonable restrictions to it. Article
19 (6) of the Constitution lays down the reasonable restriction to this fundamental right to
avoid the environmental hazards.
• The purpose is to avoid the ecological imbalance and degradation of the atmosphere in the
name of carrying on a trade, business, occupation or carrying on any profession. Thus, in the
name of business or profession, one cannot cause harm to the environment.
• Environment regulation is also a restriction on this right which is considered to be a direct
impediment on the right to trade by Industrialists. However, the attitude of courts is always of
balancing environmental interest with the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade
or business. Most of the industrial sectors like tanneries, acid factories, tie and dye factories,
distilleries are the cause of environmental pollution. Therefore, any trade, occupation or
business which adversely affects flora or fauna or human beings cannot be permitted to be
carried on in the name of fundamental rights.
• In M C Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1037 certain tanneries
were discharging effluents in the holy river Ganga which was causing
water pollution. Further, no primary treatment plant was being set up
despite the constant reminders. It was held by the court to stop the
tanneries from working because the effluents drained were ten times
more noxious as compared to the ordinary sewage water which flows
into the river.
• The court ordered while directing tanneries to be stopped from
working which have failed to take necessary steps as required for the
primary treatment of effluents from the industries. The court while
passing this order contended that, though the court is conscious about
the unemployment that might usher due to the closure of the tanneries
but health, life and ecology holds greater importance in the eyes of
law.
• In S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87], sea beaches and
sea coasts were considered to be the gifts of nature, by the Hon’ble
supreme court and any such activity which pollutes these natural
resources or the gift of nature cannot be permitted to function. In this
case, a shrimp farming culture industry causing degradation to the
ecosystem by discharging of polluting effluents and polluting the
potable ground-water and depletion of the plantation. All of these
activities were held to be violative of constitutional provisions and
other legislation dealing with environmental matters by the court.
• The court further held that before the installation of any such industry
in a fragile coastal area it is essential for them to necessarily pass the
strict environmental test. In other words,  reasonable restrictions can
be laid in accordance with Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
• In the case of  M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213, a hotel
was discharging the untreated effluents into the river Beas and was
leading to water pollution and thereby disturbing the aquatic life.
Supreme Court held that any interruption of the basic environment
elements, namely, air, water, and soil, which are necessary for “life”
“would be hazardous to life.” Therefore, Hotel cannot be permitted to
work, and the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 not
only awarded the damages but also levied fine to create a deterrent effect
on other industries.
• Further, in the case of Abhilash Textile v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation AIR 1988 GUJ 57, Court
adopted a pro-environment stance and asked the petitioners is there any right to carry on business
or trade in an unregulated manner and cause a nuisance to the public and also become a health
hazard to the society at large? If no, can the petitioners claim any right to be heard before they are
asked to discontinue or prevent the nuisance? This case involves 165 petitioners who were
conducting the business of dying and printing work at different places in the city of Rajkot, and the
respondent is Municipal Commissioner who issued the notice to petitioners to prevent the discharge
of dirty water without being purified on the public road/ drainage and thereby causing damage to
the public health. It has further stated in the notice that in case of failure to comply with the above
notice, the commissioner has to take steps to close down the factory. Petitioners contended that
their business is providing employment to twenty to thirty thousand families and it is being carried
out for last about 20 to 25 years. This notice will ultimately affect their fundamental right to
freedom to trade. Supreme Court rejected the contention and held that Article 19 (6) of the
Constitution provide for the reasonable restrictions which may be placed in the interest of general
public. So, no citizen can claim absolute right to carry on business or trade without complying with
the restrictions set on this behalf.