On the right to a healthy environment

C.Come winter, the capital wakes up to dense fog and severely poor air quality; This paralyzes the city and causes serious health problems. Directions issued by the Delhi government and the Education Directorate to ensure work from home and conduct classes in hybrid mode in schools, respectively, do not bring much help as possible health hazards continue to plague Delhiites and residents of the National Capital Region (NCR) regions.

Some of the main causes of air pollution are the burning of fossil fuels, transportation, industrial processes, waste management, demolition and agriculture. However, particulate matter is the most deadly among them and causes major health hazards such as stroke, heart and lung diseases, which kill many people every year.

Severity of particulate matter

Particulate matter is defined for the purposes of quality regulations. Particles with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM 10) can enter the body through inhalation and adversely affect health. Fine particulate matter, on the other hand, includes particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The particles emitted by the combustion of diesel, called DPM (Diesel Particulate Matter), are mostly smaller than 1 micron and constitute a subcategory of PM2.5. These cause serious health hazards even in children. In this context, the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM) has amended the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), making it mandatory to close schools in Delhi and NCR regions under Phases 3 and 4 of the plan. Earlier, the decision to implement these measures was at the discretion of the State government. Moreover, as an additional directive under Phase 3 of GRAP, State governments will now have to stagger the timings of public offices and municipal bodies in Delhi and NCR regions.

Constitutional provisions

Although the original Constitution did not mention any provisions regarding the protection of the environment, the concepts of natural justice and protection of nature were embedded in the entire constitutional order. For this reason, the Supreme Court has given the opinion that the clean environment should be included in the meaning of life within the scope of Article 21, through verbatim interpretation. Maneka Gandhi against the Union of India, 1978.

However, over the years, following the increasing demand for appropriate safeguards, especially for environmental protection and sustainable development, India has adopted policies for which it needs appropriate and effective constitutional provisions. This led to the insertion of Articles 48A and 51A(g) as responsibilities of the state and citizens respectively. An important aspect of Article 48A is that the Constitution aims to harmonize agriculture and the environment. Inside Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar, 1991Reading Articles 48A and 51A(g) together with Article 21, the Supreme Court concluded that it is constitutionally imperative for the state to take steps to protect and improve the environment so that every citizen can enjoy the right to pollution-free air and water essential for a meaningful life.

However, increasing privatization and economic liberalization since the mid-1980s have greatly degraded the environment, and the judiciary has had to step in to provide guidelines for striking a balance between economic development and environmental protection. The judiciary’s commitment to social good in general and environmental protection in particular has resulted in the innovative use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution as a tool for social and environmental justice.

Moreover, a healthy environment is one of the elements of the welfare state. Under Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, ‘environment’ includes water, air and soil and the interrelationship that exists between these three and humans, other living things, plants, microorganisms and property. The right to live in an environment free from the danger of disease and infection is an important characteristic of the right to live in accordance with human dignity.

The right to live in a healthy environment, included in the 21st article of the Constitution, was granted for the first time. Rural Case and Jurisdiction Kendra vs State of UP, 1985. Supreme Court in 1987 MC Mehta vs Union of India He considered the right to live in a pollution-free environment as a part of the fundamental right to life in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution.

Disasters and environmental protection

The issue of protecting the environment becomes even more important in times of natural or human-made disasters and disasters. The concept of ‘absolute liability’ has been introduced for disasters resulting from the storage, leakage or use of hazardous substances, as in the case of the Oleum Gas Leak. While strict liability is the concept that makes the defendant responsible for the consequences of an action, even if he did not intend to cause harm or was not at fault, absolute liability is the imposition of legal liability on a party for damages caused, regardless of fault or negligence, with certain exceptions. Additionally, the concept of strict liability is used in both criminal law and civil law.

Two other principles that gain importance in disasters affecting the environment are the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter pays principle’. These concepts are explained above. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India, 1996. The precautionary principle is an approach that requires states to take precautionary measures in case of serious threats to the environment. According to the United Nations, this principle should be widely adopted by nations according to their own capabilities. Where there is a threat of serious or irreversible harm, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures that could prevent environmental degradation. The precautionary principle is part of the law of the land and should be applied when there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. The traditional notion that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development should be given priority.

On the other hand, the polluter pays principle is the widely accepted practice that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing pollution to prevent it from harming human health or the environment. For example, a factory that produces a potentially toxic substance as a byproduct of its operations is held responsible for the safe disposal of that substance. The polluter pays principle is part of broader principles that guide sustainable development around the world.

public trust doctrine

Another important idea behind environmental protection principles is the public trust doctrine. Inside MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath The Supreme Court explained the doctrine as a reflection of a social contract between the state and the people, in which the state serves as trustee and resources belong to the people or communities. Although the state has certain rights over the resources in question, it will not use them for its personal interests, but only for the benefit of the public.

In India, Clause (b) of Article 39 states that material resources shall belong to the community, while Clause (c) of Article states that the state has the responsibility to prevent any concentration of the means of production. Moreover, when the state takes steps towards the welfare of the people, citizens have a duty to allow the state to do so. Thus, the state-citizen relationship is guided. public onlyor public law. It also refers to the right, title or dominion of public property; This means that the government has the right to appropriate resources for the public good. This is well expressed in the Constitution, especially in the Directive Principles.

For example, Radhey Shyam SahuThe Supreme Court ruled that the public trust doctrine stems from the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution that protect the lives of the public and obliged the state to maintain public parks for citizens.

When it comes to the effects of climate change, the Supreme Court MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India, 2024 The right to protection against the negative effects of climate change was accepted as a part of the right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution and as a part of the right to equality in Article 14.

Although national and foreign governments claim that they are taking steps to protect the environment, these claims are far from satisfactory. In addition, judicially granted rights are protected by Article III of the Constitution. Since it cannot be claimed directly unless it is linked to any of the rights included in the section, the state may become anxiously reluctant to take steps. Therefore, it is high time that the right to a clean and healthy environment is clearly included in the Constitution and that both the state and the citizen have equal responsibility.

The author is the Director of the Center for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi.

It was published – 23 December 2025 08:30 IST