Right to a Healthy Environment: Right to Healthy, Clean and Stable Environment under Articles 21 and 14 of The Constitution of India and Other Acts and Laws in India

Posted on April 20, 2024 by News Updated Knowledge Information

Right to a Healthy Environment: Right to Healthy, Clean and Stable Environment under Articles 21 and 14 of The Constitution of India and Other Acts and Laws in India

The right to a healthy environment is an essential aspect of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Articles 21 and 14 play a crucial role in ensuring this right:

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Over time, the judiciary has expanded the scope of this article to include various facets, one of which is the right to a healthy environment. This means that the state is obligated to provide its citizens with an environment that is free from pollution and ecological degradation, as it directly impacts their health and quality of life.

Article 14: Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of Laws

Article 14 ensures that all citizens are treated equally and have equal protection under the law. This extends to environmental protection, as the state must take measures to prevent environmental harm and ensure that no individual or community is disproportionately affected by environmental degradation or pollution.

In addition to these constitutional provisions, India has several acts and laws that specifically focus on environmental protection, such as:

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides a framework for the protection and improvement of the environment, including pollution control and the establishment of environmental standards.

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Aims to prevent, control, and reduce air pollution and maintain air quality standards.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Focuses on preventing and controlling water pollution, maintaining water quality, and ensuring safe and clean water for citizens.

The Indian Forest Act, 1927: Provides for the conservation and sustainable management of forests and their resources, which contribute to maintaining a healthy environment.

The right to a healthy environment is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution and is further supported by specific acts and laws aimed at environmental protection. It is the responsibility of both the government and citizens to ensure the preservation and improvement of India’s environment for the well-being of current and future generations.

The right to a healthy environment is recognized in India through various provisions of the Constitution and a robust legislative framework.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court of India has interpreted this right to include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. In landmark cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhi Chand (1989), the Court held that pollution of air and water violates the right to life.
Article 48A, introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, casts a duty upon the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife.
Article 51A(g), also introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the environment.

Legislative Framework

Several legislations have been enacted by the Indian Parliament and State Legislatures to protect the environment. Some of the important ones include:

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
The Environment Protection Act, 1986
The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

These laws regulate various aspects of environmental protection, including pollution control, waste management, forest conservation, wildlife protection, and biodiversity conservation.

The Right to a Healthy Environment and Sustainable Development

The right to a healthy environment is increasingly recognized as being essential for sustainable development. Sustainable development aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. A clean and healthy environment is critical for human health, well-being, and economic prosperity.

Challenges

India faces significant challenges in ensuring the right to a healthy environment for all its citizens. These challenges include:

Rapid industrialization and urbanization
Pollution of air, water, and soil
Deforestation and biodiversity loss
Climate change

The right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right in India. The Constitution and various environmental legislations provide a strong legal framework for its protection. However, significant challenges remain in ensuring that all Indians can enjoy this right. By effectively implementing environmental laws, promoting sustainable development practices, and raising public awareness, India can work towards a cleaner and healthier environment for all.

In India, the right to a healthy environment is not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution. However, the judiciary has interpreted certain provisions of the Constitution to include the right to a healthy environment as a part of the broader right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Additionally, Article 48A of the Constitution directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

Here are some key provisions and legal developments related to the right to a healthy environment in India:

Article 21 of the Constitution: The Indian judiciary has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to a healthy environment. In various landmark judgments, the Supreme Court of India has held that the right to life includes the right to clean air, water, and a pollution-free environment.
Article 48A of the Constitution: This article directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife.
Environmental Protection Act, 1986: This is one of the key legislations for environmental protection in India. It provides for the protection and improvement of the environment and for matters connected therewith.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This act aims to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain or restore wholesomeness of water.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This act is designed to prevent, control, and abate air pollution.
National Green Tribunal (NGT): The NGT was established in 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: This act regulates diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: This act provides for the protection of wild animals, birds, and plants.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: This act aims to conserve biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Judicial Activism: The Indian judiciary has been actively involved in environmental protection through its judgments. It has issued directives and guidelines to various government bodies and industries to ensure environmental conservation.

Overall, while the right to a healthy environment is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution of India, it has been recognized and upheld by the judiciary through interpretations of various constitutional provisions and through environmental laws and regulations.

Right against climate change a distinct fundamental and human right, SC judgment Linking the right against climate change to Articles 21 and 14, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the rights to life and equality cannot be fully realised without a clean, stable environment Right against adverse effects of climate change part of rights to life, equality: SC Supreme Court says adverse effects of climate change impact citizens’ right to life Right against adverse effects of climate change part of right to life: India`s Supreme Court Supreme Court says climate crisis threatens right to life Rights to life and equality include right against adverse effects of climate change: Supreme Court Supreme Court: Right Against Climate Change Now Fundamental

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution to include the “right against the adverse effects of climate change.” This decision recognizes the interdependence of environmental protection, human rights, and sustainable development.

The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized the importance of the natural world and acknowledged the impact of climate change on people’s lives. The court held that Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee rights to equality and life, respectively, encompass the right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change.

Although Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution, which focus on environmental protection, are not justiciable provisions, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 demonstrates the recognition of the importance of the natural world and transforms it into a fundamental right.

This judgment is a significant step towards addressing climate change concerns in India and emphasizes the responsibility of the state to safeguard citizens’ rights by implementing effective climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.

In a landmark judgement passed in March 2024, the Supreme Court of India recognized the right against the adverse effects of climate change as an intrinsic part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

Articles 14 and 21: These articles ensure the right to equality and right to life respectively. The Court emphasized that these rights can’t be fully enjoyed without a clean and stable environment, free from the harmful impacts of climate change.
Right against Climate Change: This judgement effectively elevates the fight against climate change to a fundamental right. This means citizens can now hold the government accountable for taking action to protect them from the negative consequences of climate change.
Impact on Citizens: The Court acknowledged that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable communities, impacting their lives, livelihoods, and access to basic necessities. This right empowers them to seek legal recourse.

This judgement is a significant step forward for India’s environmental jurisprudence. It strengthens the legal framework for environmental protection and empowers citizens to be active participants in the fight against climate change.

The Supreme Court of India has indeed linked the right against climate change to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution in various judgments. Chief Justice Chandrachud, along with other justices, has emphasized that the rights to life and equality cannot be fully realized without a clean and stable environment.

The Supreme Court has recognized that adverse effects of climate change impact citizens’ right to life. By interpreting Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, the court has indicated that it includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. Furthermore, the right to equality under Article 14 has been linked to environmental protection, as the impacts of climate change disproportionately affect marginalized communities and future generations.

While the Supreme Court has not explicitly declared the right against adverse effects of climate change as a separate fundamental right, it has acknowledged the severity of the climate crisis and the need for robust legal mechanisms to address it. Through various judgments and directives, the court has emphasized the responsibility of the government to take effective measures to mitigate climate change and protect the environment for the well-being of present and future generations.

M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019

This case involves a petition seeking directions for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard, a critically endangered bird species.

The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to issue directions to the respondents, which include the Union of India and other government authorities, to urgently frame and implement an emergency response plan to protect the Great Indian Bustard. They also sought the installation of bird diverters, an embargo on new projects, and dismantling power lines in critical habitats to minimize threats to the species.

The Supreme Court’s initial directions in 2021 focused on measures to protect the Great Indian Bustard, but the verdict was later reviewed in 2024. In the 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental rights to life and equality as sources for the right against the adverse effects of climate change, highlighting the state’s responsibility to address climate change and protect citizens’ well-being.

This case has significant implications for environmental protection, species conservation, and climate change mitigation in India.

M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 is a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India to protect the Great Indian Bustard, a critically endangered bird. The petition argued that overhead transmission lines were a threat to the bird’s habitat.

The Court previously restricted the construction of overhead transmission lines in an effort to protect the Great Indian Bustard. However, the Indian government requested that the Court modify its judgment. They argued that undergrounding high voltage power lines was not feasible. They also argued that India has committed to using renewable energy sources. The Court directed the Union of India to file a status report.

M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019

m-k-ranjitsinh-ors.-vs.-union-of-india-ors.-writ-petition-civil-no.-838-of-2019 Download

जलवायु परिवर्तन के खिलाफ अधिकार एक विशिष्ट मौलिक और मानवाधिकार है, सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला जलवायु परिवर्तन के खिलाफ अधिकार को अनुच्छेद 21 और 14 से जोड़ते हुए, मुख्य न्यायाधीश चंद्रचूड़ ने कहा कि जीवन और समानता के अधिकारों को स्वच्छ, स्थिर पर्यावरण के बिना पूरी तरह से महसूस नहीं किया जा सकता है। जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रतिकूल प्रभावों के खिलाफ अधिकार जीवन, समानता के अधिकारों का हिस्सा: सुप्रीम कोर्ट सुप्रीम कोर्ट का कहना है कि जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नागरिकों के जीवन के अधिकार पर असर डालते हैं ‘जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रतिकूल प्रभावों के खिलाफ अधिकार जीवन के अधिकार का हिस्सा’: भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय सुप्रीम कोर्ट का कहना है कि जलवायु संकट से जीवन के अधिकार को खतरा है जीवन और समानता के अधिकारों में जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रतिकूल प्रभावों के खिलाफ अधिकार भी शामिल है: सुप्रीम कोर्ट सुप्रीम कोर्ट: जलवायु परिवर्तन के ख़िलाफ़ अधिकार अब मौलिक

Right to a Healthy Environment: Right to Healthy, Clean and Stable Environment under Articles 21 and 14 of The Constitution of India and Other Acts and Laws in India

Importance of Forest Protection, Climate Protection, Global Warming, Raises Alarm On Climate Change Impacts, Advocates Forest Protection Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India has recognized the importance of forest protection in addressing climate change impacts and advocates for its preservation. Forests play a crucial role in maintaining the balance of the ecosystem and have numerous benefits, including:

Carbon sequestration: Forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, mitigating the greenhouse effect. Protecting forests helps in reducing global warming.
Biodiversity conservation: Forests are home to a vast array of plant and animal species, contributing to the planet’s biodiversity.
Climate regulation: Forests regulate local and global climates by releasing water vapor and affecting temperature and precipitation patterns.
Soil conservation: Tree roots hold soil in place, preventing erosion and maintaining soil fertility.
Water cycle regulation: Forests play a vital role in the water cycle by absorbing and releasing water, maintaining the balance of water resources.

Climate change impacts are a significant concern, and the Supreme Court’s advocacy for forest protection highlights the importance of preserving these ecosystems for the well-being of the environment and society. Sustainable forest management, reforestation, and afforestation efforts are critical steps in mitigating the effects of climate change and ensuring a healthier planet for future generations.

Let’s connect the dots between forest protection, climate change, and the actions of the Supreme Court of India.

Global Warming and Climate Change: The Earth’s atmosphere is trapping heat due to greenhouse gasses, primarily from burning fossil fuels. This warming disrupts weather patterns, melts glaciers, and causes rising sea levels. It’s a major threat to the planet.
Forests as Earth’s Lungs: Forests absorb carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas. They act like giant filters, removing it from the air and storing it in trees and soil. Protecting forests helps mitigate climate change.
Alarming Impacts: The Supreme Court of India recognizes the urgency. They’ve ruled that the right to life and equality (Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution) includes protection from climate change impacts. Deforestation worsens these impacts, harming everyone.
Forest Protection Advocacy: The Court emphasizes the importance of forest protection. They see the destruction of forests as harming the very people who depend on them. Their stance strengthens efforts to conserve these vital ecosystems.

In essence, the Supreme Court is recognizing that healthy forests are crucial for fighting climate change and protecting the well-being of Indian citizens. Their advocacy for forest protection is a positive step towards a healthier planet.

The case of State of Telangana and ors vs Mohd Abdul Qasim dealt with land ownership and did not directly address forest protection or climate change.

Here’s what we know about the case:

Parties Involved: The State of Telangana (formerly Andhra Pradesh) and its forest department challenged Mohd. Abdul Qasim’s claim of ownership over a piece of land.
Land Dispute: Abdul Qasim claimed ownership of the land, while the state argued it was forest land.
Court Decisions: The case went through various levels of courts. Lower courts ruled in favor of Abdul Qasim. The Supreme Court judgement details are not publicly available yet (as of April 20, 2024).

An Interesting Twist:

The Supreme Court did impose a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Telangana government for filing incorrect affidavits regarding the land’s classification (forest or not). This highlights the importance of accurate information in land disputes.

While this case wasn’t directly about forest protection, it shows the complexities of land ownership and resource management in India.

In the case of “State of Telangana and ors vs Mohd Abdul Qasim”, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of protecting forests and the environment for the benefit of society. The case dealt with a dispute over the ownership and transfer of land that had been classified as a forest area. The court observed that the protection of forests is in the interest of mankind, especially considering the adverse effects of climate change.

The judgment highlighted the following key points:

Protection of forests is essential for the well-being of society, particularly the vulnerable sections, as they are more likely to be affected by climate change and environmental degradation.
Forests play a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance, ensuring the availability of natural resources, and mitigating the effects of global warming.
The state has a responsibility to ensure that forest lands are not diverted for non-forest purposes without following proper procedures and safeguards.
The court imposed costs on the state government for incorrect affidavits filed in the case, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in such matters.

This decision reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to environmental protection and highlights the importance of responsible land use and management to ensure sustainable development and the well-being of all citizens.

The case of MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India (2024) dealt with the critical issue of protecting endangered birds and their habitat in the context of environmental protection. Here’s a breakdown of the case:

Petitioners: MK Ranjitsinh and others (Ors.) likely represent a group or organization concerned with wildlife conservation.
Respondents: The Union of India, representing the central government, was likely joined by other respondents potentially including relevant state governments.
Issue: The petitioners challenged the threat posed by overhead power lines to the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, critically endangered bird species. Collisions with these lines were a major cause of bird deaths.
Arguments:
- Petitioners: Overhead power lines endanger these birds and hinder their conservation efforts.
- Respondents (likely): While acknowledging the issue, they might have argued the high cost and challenges of underground cables as an alternative.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court of India recognized the gravity of the situation. They likely directed actions to protect the birds, potentially including:
- Installing bird diverters on existing power lines in critical areas.
- Assessing the feasibility of underground cables in priority areas.
- Setting deadlines for further action.

Significance: This case highlights the Supreme Court’s role in environmental protection. Their decision prioritizes the conservation of endangered species even when balanced against economic considerations. It sets a precedent for future cases involving development projects and wildlife preservation.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of “M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union of India” (2022), delivered a significant judgment that addressed the issue of climate change and its impact on the environment and society. The case involved a petition seeking the protection of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, two endangered bird species, from the adverse effects of overhead power lines in their habitats.

The key highlights of the judgment are as follows:

Recognition of the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change: The Supreme Court recognized this right under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution.
Balancing of competing interests: The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of environmental protection with the requirements of infrastructure development and economic growth.
State’s responsibility: The judgment highlighted the state’s responsibility to protect the environment and take necessary measures to address climate change impacts.
Collaborative approach: The court directed the formation of a committee to develop quality standards for bird divertors and suggested a collaborative approach involving the government, experts, and civil society to address environmental concerns.

This landmark judgment emphasizes the importance of addressing climate change impacts and protecting endangered species while ensuring sustainable development. It sets a significant precedent for environmental jurisprudence in India and underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the environment and people’s rights.

The case of “Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha” (2021) is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India concerning the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The key highlights of the judgment are:

Suo Moto powers of the NGT: The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s suo moto powers, allowing the tribunal to act on its own cognizance in cases related to environmental protection and conservation.
Broad interpretation of the NGT Act: The court adopted a broad interpretation of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, ensuring that the NGT has the necessary powers to address a wide range of environmental issues.
Emphasis on environmental protection: The judgment reiterated the importance of safeguarding the environment and recognized the NGT’s crucial role in ensuring the effective implementation of environmental laws.

This decision empowers the NGT to proactively address environmental concerns and strengthens the legal framework for environmental protection in India. It sets a strong precedent for environmental jurisprudence and recognizes the need for robust institutions to address the pressing challenges of climate change and environmental degradation.

The case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha (2021) is a landmark case concerning the environment and the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in India. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

Parties Involved:
- Appellant: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), the civic body responsible for Mumbai.
- Respondent: Ankita Sinha, likely an individual who brought the case to the NGT’s attention (possibly through a news report).
Issue: The case centered on the suo motu (on its own motion) power of the NGT. This refers to the Tribunal’s ability to take up environmental cases without a formal complaint being filed.
Background: The NGT initiated proceedings (OA No. 510 of 2018) based on a newspaper report highlighting the MCGM’s failure to install a sewage treatment plant for proper solid waste management. The MCGM challenged the NGT’s authority to take such action without a formal complaint.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s power to act suo motu in environmental matters. They recognized the importance of prompt action to address environmental degradation and the potential limitations faced by individuals in filing formal complaints.
Significance: This judgment is crucial for environmental protection in India. It empowers the NGT to proactively address environmental concerns and hold authorities accountable. It also provides easier access to environmental justice, particularly for those who may not have the resources to file formal complaints.

Here are some additional points to consider:

The case involved issues related to air and water pollution due to improper waste management.
The judgment emphasized the right to a clean environment as part of the fundamental right to life (Article 21) under the Indian Constitution.

This case does not directly address forest protection, but it highlights the proactive approach the Indian judiciary can take on environmental issues.

About News Updated Knowledge Information

News Updated Knowledge Information

View all posts by News Updated Knowledge Information →

This entry was posted in News Updated Knowledge Information. Bookmark the permalink.