Right to Clean Environment as a Fundamental Right

Abstract

A basic human right that is essential to for both sustainable development and human dignity
is the right to a clean and healthy environment. The constitutional and legal framework ,
court rulings, and legal preceptsand judgements that influence Indian environmental
jurisprudence are examined in this essay. The studyThis paper illustrates the development of
environmental rights and the difficulties in putting them into practice by analysing significant
examples and international viewpoints. Recommendations for enhancing environmental
governance and guaranteeing efficient execution of environmental legislation are included in
the study's paper’s conclusion.

I. Introduction

Ecosystems, human health, and fundamental rights are all seriously threatenedunder threat by
environmental degradation. Long-term effects are caused by problems like pollution, climate
change, and biodiversity loss, especially as a result of fast urbanisation and industrialisation.
Although the right to a clean environment is not specifically mentioned in the Indian
Constitution, the judiciary has construed Article 21 to include environmental protection as a
necessary condition for the right to life. With the help of judicial activism and Public Interest
Litigations (PILs), India's legal and policy framework consists of a number of laws and
regulations targeted at resource conservation and pollution management. In order to make the
right to a healthy environment more feasible and enforceable, this study looks at the legal,
judicial, and policy frameworks that govern environmental rights in India. It does this by
examining important concepts and significant instances.

II. Constitutional and Legal Framework

The Supreme Court has read Article 21 of the Indian Constitution broadly to include the right
to a clean and healthy environment, as well as the right to life and personal liberty. Protecting
the environment has become a constitutional obligation for both the State and private actors,
as pollution and environmental deterioration have a direct impact on people's quality of life.
Article 48A of the Directive Principles, which requires the State to preserve and enhance the
environment, and Article 51A(g), which places a fundamental obligation on citizens to
maintain natural resources including forests, rivers, and wildlife, further support this
constitutional goal.

India has passed a number of important environmental laws in order to operationalise these
constitutional objectives. As a general law, the Environment Protection Act of 1986 gives the
federal government the authority to implement extensive environmental protection policies.
Through state and federal bodies, pollution is intended to be controlled by the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act of 1981. While the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 objective is to reduce s
deforestation and encourages sustainable forest management, the Wildlife Protection Act of
1972 aims to preserve biodiversity by safeguarding endangered species.

The environmental jurisprudence of India has been greatly influenced by the courts. The
Supreme Court held in Ratlam Municipality v. Vardichand (1980) that financial limitations
cannot excuse disregard for environmental obligations. In order to safeguard the public's
health, the Court ordered companies to implement pollution-control technologies and follow
environmental regulations in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986). The Court's proactive role
in upholding environmental rights and establishing a standard for future actions is highlighted
by these historic rulings.

There are still a number of obstacles in the way of these forward-thinking legal and judicial
initiatives. Effective implementation is nevertheless hampered by inadequate enforcement
measures, low public awareness, and industrial resistance. Realising the constitutional
promise of environmental protection requires bolstering institutional capacity, boosting
community involvement, and holding violators accountable.

III. Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

By defining the right to a clean environment as a component of the fundamental right to life
under Article 21, the Indian judiciary has made great progress in environmental protection
over the years. By closing limestone quarries in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), the Supreme Court put environmental preservation ahead of
commercial concerns. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the right to an environment
free from pollution was upheld. The MC Mehta decisions established two important
doctrines: mandatory relocation of polluted industry (1992) and absolute liability (1987) for
hazardous enterprises.

The precautionary and polluter-pays concepts were established in the 1996 case of Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India. Other significant decisions include G.
Sundarrajan v. Union of India (2013), which struck a balance between environmental safety
and development, AP Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999), which
emphasised the need of scientific input in environmental decisions, and TN Godavarman
(1997), which dealt with forest protection. Because of these rulings, protecting the
environment is now a constitutionally mandated and legally binding obligation.

IV. Environmental Jurisprudence and Evolution

Indian courts have been instrumental in influencing environmental jurisprudence through

judicial activism and Public Interest Litigations (PILs). A number of fundamental ideas have
surfaced over time. Sustainable development aims to strike a balance between environmental
preservation and economic growth. Even in the absence of scientific certainty, the
precautionary principle requires proactive measures to prevent environmental harm. The
polluter pays concept guarantees that the expenses of rehabilitation are borne by those who
cause environmental harm. While the public trust concept maintains that the state is a trustee
of natural resources and must safeguard them for the benefit of the public, intergenerational
equity places an emphasis on preserving natural resources for future generations.

By ordering businesses that had disposed of hazardous waste to pay for the environmental
remediation, the Supreme Court upheld the polluter pays principle in Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996). These tenets currently serve as the foundation
for India's environmental legislation.

V. Global Perspectives on Environmental Rights

Environmental conservation is a worldwide necessity as well as a national one. India's

environmental policy have been greatly impacted by a number of international agreements
that establish a framework for acknowledging and upholding the right to a clean environment.

One of the foundational texts of international environmental law is the Stockholm

Declaration of 1972, which emphasises that everyone has the fundamental right to freedom,
equality, and suitable living conditions in an environment that supports a life of dignity and
well-being. Many nations, including India, have been motivated to include environmental
protection as a fundamental human right in their legal frameworks as a result of this
declaration.

Important concepts like sustainable development and the precautionary principle were further
defined by the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), which emphasised
the necessity of environmental preservation in addition to economic expansion. Humans are
at the core of sustainable development concerns, according to Principle 1 of the Rio
Declaration, and they have a right to a productive and healthy existence in balance with the
environment.
Most recently, the Paris Agreement (2015) has emerged as a crucial tool in the battle against
climate change, highlighting the significance of global collaboration in reducing its
consequences. In order to protect the environment for coming generations, this pact tries to
keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, which is closely related to environmental
rights.

Significant variations between jurisdictions are revealed by a comparative study of

environmental governance. Federal legislation like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act
are the main regulators of environmental protection in the United States. These laws show a
proactive approach to protecting environmental rights by establishing thorough frameworks
for reducing pollution in the air and water.
Strict environmental regulations have also been implemented by the European Union (EU),
notably through the European Green Deal, which attempts to make Europe carbon neutral by
2050. In order to ensure that sustainable practices are followed across a range of sectors, the
EU's environmental governance framework places a strong emphasis on integrating
environmental issues into all areas of policymaking.

The Constitution of South Africa, which gives environmental rights a solid legal basis,
expressly acknowledges the right to a healthy environment. In a number of judgements, the
Constitutional Court has affirmed this right, reaffirming the state's duty to preserve the
environment for current and future generations.
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), a seminal decision in the United States, established a major
precedent by upholding the Clean Air Act's jurisdiction for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court established a
legal standard for tackling climate change and strengthened governmental accountability in
environmental protection when it declared that greenhouse gases are pollutants that
jeopardise public health and welfare.

These international viewpoints show that the struggle for a sustainable and clean environment
cuts across national borders and emphasise the value of international collaboration and legal
frameworks in promoting environmental rights. India can improve its own legal and judicial
systems for defending the right to a clean environment by learning a lot from these foreign
frameworks and comparative practices as it develops its environmental policy.

VI. Challenges in Implementing Environmental Rights

India's implementation of extensive environmental regulations, such as the Air and Water
Acts and the Environment Protection Act of 1986, is still lacking. The effective application of
these rules is hampered by limited funding, a lack of political will, and administrative
inefficiencies. Regulatory bodies frequently have a shortage of staff and technical know-how,
which makes it challenging to keep an eye on compliance or act quickly to punish offenders.
Furthermore, the sanctions levied are often too light to be a powerful deterrence.

India's economy has grown significantly as a result of its fast industrialisation, but frequently
at the expense of environmental sustainability. Large industries that significantly contribute to
pollution and the depletion of natural resources include mining, manufacturing, and building.
There is a perpetual tension between the objectives of ecological preservation and economic
advancement since the constant push for economic development often eclipses environmental
concerns. One of the most difficult problems facing India's environmental policy system is
finding a balance between these conflicting interests.

Although there has been progress in raising public knowledge of environmental issues, there
is still a lack of active grassroots involvement. Many communities don't know enough about
their environmental rights or the ways they can be enforced. Broader and more inclusive
public engagement is still in its infancy, despite the fact that Public Interest Litigations (PILs)
have been essential in bringing significant environmental issues to the courts. Building a
culture of environmental accountability requires increasing public participation.

The enforcement of environmental standards is further undermined by administrative delays

and corruption. In many cases, vested interests have caused regulatory bodies to postpone
necessary approvals or give illegal permissions. These procedures compromise the integrity
of procedures including environmental clearances, inspections, and compliance monitoring,
especially when combined with bureaucratic inefficiencies. Environmental governance is
hampered and public trust is severely damaged by such problems.

In addition, climate change and other worldwide environmental issues pose increasing risks
to India. Important industries like infrastructure, public health, and agriculture are already
being impacted by extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and rising temperatures.
Furthermore, domestic environmental problems are made worse by transboundary issues like
air pollution and biodiversity loss. It is extremely difficult to strike a balance between
development and climate action, particularly as India works to accomplish its economic goals
and make the shift to a low-carbon economy.

India's natural landscape has been significantly shaped by the judiciary. The Supreme Court
applied the Public Trust Doctrine in the famous case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997),
highlighting the need to preserve natural resources for future generations as public assets.
According to the Court, the state must act as a trustee of the environment and forbid the
exploitation or abuse of natural resources for personal or financial benefit. This decision
demonstrates the judiciary's proactive involvement in upholding environmental rights and
continues to be a pillar of Indian environmental jurisprudence.

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations

Following the judicial expansion of the right to life, the right to a clean and healthy
environment is becoming more widely acknowledged as a basic right under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. Although the Indian legal and constitutional structure provides a strong
basis for environmental preservation, there are many obstacles that prevent this right from
being fully implemented. The ability of environmental laws to guarantee a sustainable and
pollution-free environment for everyone is undermined by the enduring problems of
bureaucratic inefficiency, economic pressures, low public awareness, and poor enforcement
mechanisms.

In conclusion, it is evident that in order to accomplish its environmental objectives, India

requires a more comprehensive and integrated approach to environmental governance that
incorporates judicial, legal, and community-driven initiatives. A strong legal framework, open
and accountable government, and engaged citizens are necessary for the full realisation of the
right to a clean environment.
Recommendations

Reinforcing institutional and legal frameworks is crucial to improving environmental

governance in India. To properly implement environmental regulations, regulatory agencies
such as the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) require more authority, funding, and technical know-how. For these institutions to
keep an eye on compliance and take prompt action against offenders, they need to be outfitted
with knowledgeable staff and cutting-edge technology. Furthermore, current legislation needs
to be revised to include provisions for prompt enforcement and severe penalties in order to
address new environmental concerns like waste management, biodiversity protection, and
climate change.

Effective environmental protection also depends on community involvement and public

awareness. Public participation in environmental governance is still quite low at the moment.
NGOs and government organisations should work together to create awareness campaigns
that inform the public of their responsibilities and rights regarding the environment.
Promoting community-led projects can enable people to participate in enforcement actions at
the local level. Examples of these include citizen-driven public interest litigations (PILs),
local environmental monitoring, and forums for local discourse.

Since industrial operations are a major contributor to environmental deterioration, stricter

control is necessary. Strict emission regulations, frequent monitoring, and mandates for the
use of cleaner and more sustainable technology must all be applied to industries. Enforcing
the Polluter Pays Principle strictly will make sure that businesses pay for the harm they do to
the environment. Frequent environmental audits and prompt legal sanctions can encourage
accountability in the industrial sector and discourage non-compliance.

In India, the judiciary has significantly contributed to the advancement of environmental

rights. To protect natural resources, courts must keep interpreting important environmental
principles including the Public Trust Doctrine, Intergenerational Equity, and the
Precautionary Principle. Strong precedents have already been set by landmark rulings, and
continued judicial supervision is essential to guarantee that the public and commercial sectors
follow environmental laws.

India has to improve its international cooperation because environmental challenges are
global in scope. The nation will be better equipped to address global environmental issues if
its domestic laws are in line with international accords like the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the Paris Agreement. Access to vital resources, technologies, and knowledge
can also be obtained by active involvement in international environmental alliances.

Last but not least, combating climate change needs to be a top national priority. India must
invest in renewable energy, cut carbon emissions, and support sustainable agriculture in order
to make the transition to a green economy. To protect the environment for coming
generations, it is crucial to build climate-resilient infrastructure and put mitigation and
adaptation plans into action. India's future environmental policies must be based on
sustainable development.

References

[1.] The Constitution of India

[2.] The Environment Protection Act, 1986

[3.] The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

[4.] The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

[5.] Supreme Court Judgments on Environmental Law

[6.] Scholarly Articles on Environmental Jurisprudence