According to Krishna Iyer J, the root of development is the view in Ratlam Municipal Council vs. Vardhichand. The case stems from a basic set of circumstances. Ratlam’s municipal council neglected to take efforts to keep roadways in one neighborhood in a safe and hygienic state. The municipal board’s primary justification was a lack of funds to maintain the route. According to Krishna Iyer J., there was a pressing need to focus on the common man.
The case specifically read into the situation a constitution directive for the court and observed ‘Where directive principles have found statutory expression in dos and don’ts the court will not sit idly by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. The law will relentlessly be enforced and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice’.
When the Ratlam judgement is read objectively, it indicates a paradigm shift in the function of the courts. Traditionally, and especially before to Ratlam, the court’s function was seen as reactive. They were created with the express purpose of delivering justice to those who had been denied their rights. Iyer J added a proactive component by noting that when the Constitution’s directive principles have spelt out the intended acts or omissions, the court has a duty to execute the law “relentlessly.” This composition has bolstered environmental protection efforts. It reaffirmed the notion that judicial authority may compel hesitant bureaucracies to obey.
As the result the 42nd amendment to the constitution was implemented which brought about the understanding for the need for a healthy environment and thus indicated the dos and don’ts needed for a healthy environment. The necessary implication was that the courts have a duty to relentlessly enforce this law. This was an open invitation to constitutionalism the problems of management of the environment.
42ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which was enacted during the Stockholm Conference of 1972, made significant revisions to the Indian Constitution, earning it the moniker “little constitution.” This Amendment made modifications to a variety of issues, but when it came to environmental legislation, it established duty on the part of both the state and individuals to conserve and enhance the environment. This was done by the incorporation of Article 48A and 51 (g).
The Indian Constitution put an obligation on the state to “protect and develop the environment, as well as safeguard the country’s forests and wildlife” by including Article 48-A as part of the Directive Principle of State Policy.
It placed a total of ten basic obligations on citizens by adopting Article 51-A. These responsibilities were imposed on citizens because they are endowed with various fundamental rights as citizens of this country, and because rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked, fundamental responsibilities were imposed on citizens to serve as a constant reminder to them that the Constitution bestowed upon them certain fundamental rights which also requires certain duties on their part to be fulfilled as being ideal citizens.
As a result, citizens have a basic responsibility to “protect and develop the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and animals, and to show compassion for living creatures,” according to Article 51-A (g).
These articles came into use in the case of Sachidanand Pandey V. State of W.B. The directive concept to conserve and enhance the environment is incorporated in Article 48A of the Constitution, according to Chinnappa Reddy J. His lordship further alluded to Article 51 A (g), which states that protecting and improving the natural environment is a basic obligation of every Indian citizen.
The court held in this case:
“When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive principle of State Policy 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 a matter for the policy making authority. The least that the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevant excluded.”
This case was used as a precedent in many cases to come which viewed the protection of the environment as a fundamental duty as well as a directive principle of state policy. It was this view of the courts which helped in the development of ambit of Article 21 to include environmental protection.
CONCLUSION
Various rulings increasingly illustrate the Supreme Court’s function as the final interpretation. The constitutionalizing of environmental issues by India’s supreme court is the most significant achievement of contemporary law in the country. Environmental law in India is taking on new aspects every day. The different statuses have been interpreted in light of the constitutional system pertaining to the subject of natural environment projection and preservation. Prior to 1980, there were laws in place to manage pollution, but nothing had been done to actually reduce pollution. However, the Supreme Court of India has recently expanded the definition of environmental rights. The Supreme Court interpreted the law in a way that resulted in the establishment of new rights. This court has established new rights, such as the right to health and a pollution-free environment, under Article 21. In most countries, it is now widely acknowledged that monetary or financial compensation is a reasonable, effective, and sometimes the only appropriate remedy for redressing of an established breach of a citizen’s fundamental right to life. Under the highest courts of the land, the action in public law can be upheld. When this remedy is accessible, there may be a flood of lawsuits claiming constitutional tort remedies for violations of the basic right to a healthy environment. However, there are still hurdles preventing this from happening. The development, therefore, is not yet completed but there will be changes that can be seen with the passage of time.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge