The right to a healthy environment is not explicitly protected by the Constitution. No such privilege is expressly enumerated in Part III of the constitution. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has established the right to a healthy environment sub–silentio. This sub-silentio technique has a propensity to avoid provoking a debate on such a topic. It might refer to any of the two possibilities. It might either imply that the right to a healthy environment is ipso facto a component of the right to life and personal liberty, or that the right to a healthy environment is too widely known to require justification.

Article 21 of the Constitution has undergone three periods of modification in the previous 55 years of constitutional adjudication, as is well recognized in constitutional law. The first step included restricted textual interpretation, which was followed by a residual coverage stage. In the third phase, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution developed as an overarching basic right.

The Maneka Gandhi Case had a broad interpretation of the scope of article 21, making it the repository of all rights required for the enjoyment of life. The inclusion of the right to a healthy environment within the protection of the Constitution was made possible by a broad interpretation of article 21.

It was observed by the court in the case by Bhagwati J.:

“It is indeed difficult to see on that principle we can refuse to give its plain natural meaning to the expression ‘personal liberty’ as used in Article 21 and 19 and read it in a narrow and restricted sense so as to exclude those attributes of personal liberty which are specifically dealt with in Article 19. We do not think that this would be a correct way of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution conferring fundamental rights. The attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and meaning and content by a process of judicial construction.”

Bhagwati J, who was the driving force for expanding the scope of article 21, had the chance to expand article 21’s protection to include the right to a healthy environment. The issue in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. was the closing of some limestone quarries in and around Mussoorie. The court stated that the case was the first of its type in the country, encompassing concerns of environmental and ecological balance, and that the matters under consideration were of grave importance. The issue also featured a clash between development and conservation, according to the court. It emphasized the need for reconciling the two in the larger interest of the country.

The court, however, avoided any discussion of the fundamental right to a wholesome environment or its emergence from the guarantee of personal liberty. There is only a small part of the single sentence which refers to the ‘need of safeguarding the right of the people to live in a healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without hazard to them or their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affection of air, water environment’. In the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, the same tactic of avoiding was used and the necessity to explain the inclusion of the right to a healthy environment among the fundamental rights was avoided. In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide whether it may order compensation for a breach of the right to a healthy environment in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. While the ability of the court to create process suited for the enforcement of a basic right was discussed at length, not a single syllable was given to a statement integrating the right to a healthy environment as part of the guarantee of life and personal liberty.

Following these cases, India faced a period of emergency after which the Supreme Court had entered into a phase where they wanted to strengthen their laws. The basic right to life and personal liberty protected by Article 21 was enlarged to encompass environmental protection as a result of this procedure. The Supreme Court strengthened Article 21 in two ways. First, it required laws affecting personal liberty to also pass the tests of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that the procedure depriving a person of his or her personal liberty be reasonable, fair and just. Second, the court recognized several unarticulated liberties that were implied by Article 21. It is by this second method that the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life and personal liberty to include the right to a wholesome environment

The first indication of the right to a wholesome environment may be traced to the Dehradun Quarrying Case. The SC evolved a new right to the environment without specifically mentioning it. The case was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and Orders were given with emphasis on the need to protect the environment. This new right meant a clear, hygienic, unpolluted environment which leads to a life of dignity. Environmental degradation has a disastrous impact on the right to livelihood which is a part of the right to life and hence Article 21 also considered environmental protection under its ambit. This acceptance of environmental protection under the ambit of Article 21 was seen in the later cases which came to the court in relation to environmental protection.  The Supreme Court has recently acknowledged the ‘right to livelihood’ as a component of the right to life under Art.21. This wide understanding of the term “right to life” is extremely useful in preventing government action that has an environmental impact and threatens the livelihood of impoverished people, forest dwellers, and tribals by displacing them from their homes or otherwise depriving them of their livelihood.

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