INTRODUCTION
Revered for its revolutionary susceptibility to respond to changes in society, the Indian Constitution demonstrates that quality of right and justice capability in its interpretation of Article 21, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty”, in Article 21.[1] Originally narrowly interpreted to be a safeguard against unlawful deprivation of life and liberty, Article 21 has been interpreted judicially to mean more than its own limited text. Article 21 is now foundational to the recognition of a range of rights, such as rights to privacy, dignity, livelihoods, and education. One of the most pertinent developments in its interpretation has been the recognition of environmental rights to life under Article 21, and in this sense we could call this phenomenon “constitutional green justice” as a distinct part of human rights.
As climate change, deforestation, pollution, and over-exploitation of natural resources pose significant threats to human life, the judiciary has transformed the idea of the “right to life” in Article 21 of the Constitution and it now includes the “right to a healthy environment.” The Constitution has led to a legal obligation to protect the environment, and has connected the concepts of dignity, sustainability, and, intergenerational equity, establishing a constitutional, and in some cases artistic, basis for environmental protection. This blog explores how the judiciary has expanded in meaning Article 21 by incorporating environmental concerns, and critically reflects on whether this case law is sufficient for environmental justice and sustainability in the future.
ARTICLE 21: FROM LIBERTY TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In its initial years, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow view of Article 21, as seen in the case of A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras, where the Article provided protection against executive action only if it complied with the “procedure established by law.”[2] Nevertheless, this narrow view changed in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, where it was held that, in order to satisfy Article 21, the “procedure established by law” must be “fair, just and reasonable.”[3] This view initiated the expansive interpretation of Article 21.
It is important to emphasize that, in the course of expanding the right to life and liberty, environmental considerations began to appear as the Supreme Court demonstrated the expanded view of the “right to life” as going beyond bare subsistence. Rather, it was held to mean living with dignity, living in clean air, drinking safe water and ecological balance. Ultimately, the judiciary has raised environmental protection from a statutory or policy issue to one of a constitutional right, and, as such, can now be enforced against both State and private actors.
LINKING ENVIRONMENT AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The validation of environmental rights through Article 21 by the court was neither a rash nor an opportunistic step. Instead, it signalled a developing consciousness that human flourishing is embedded in the wellbeing of the ecological suite. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh, the court made an order to close limestone quarries in the hills of Mussoorie on the basis that the violation of right to life had occurred on account of an ecological effect.[4] It was criticized because it inhibited the livelihoods of some people, but more importantly, it was the first clear judicial acknowledgement of ecological safeguards as part of Article 21.
The same rationale was expressed further in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, where the court stated that the right to life included a right to live in an environment of pollution-free water[5] and air; in Virendra Gaur v State of Haryana, it was stated that “a meaningful right to life” requires environmental, ecological and hygienic conditions.[6] In each of these decisions, the court directly connected fundamental rights to environmental sustainability and held that degradation of natural resources should be treated as a constitutional wrong.
LANDMARK CASES ON GREEN JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE
21M.C. Mehta and Public Interest Litigation
Any account of environmental jurisprudence in India is deficient without considering the influence of M.C. Mehta, a lawyer who successfully brought forth multiple public interest litigations (PILs). In M.C. Mehta v Union of India (the Oleum Gas Leak case), the Court expanded tort law by creating the doctrine of absolute liability, which mandates that industries must be strictly liable for any activities that may result in harm regardless of fault.[7] This same case advanced a constitutionally-based obligation to protect citizens from environmental hazards.
Similarly, in M.C. Mehta v Union of India (the Ganga Pollution case), the Court ordered the closing of tanneries that were polluting the Ganga River, and in doing so, determined that the right to life factor also entailed the right to clean water.[8] Finally, the Taj Trapezium case involved the same Court issuing inherent rights balanced against the protection of cultural heritage by ordering surrounding industries to convert to cleaner fuel to reduce air pollution and protect the Taj Mahal.[9]
The Oleum Gas Leak and the Rise of Environmental Accountability
The Oleum Gas Leak case was unique on its own merit, as it creatively showcased the consequences of environmental damage from a direct violation of Article 21. The Court found industrial entities liable for environmental damage even when they were complying with the law. It transformed environmental justice from a reactive to a preventive mandate.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India
In this instance, the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle were brought into Indian law by the Supreme Court.[10] By making tanneries liable for the pollution of waterbodies in Tamil Nadu, the Court has ensured that environmental governance considers constitutional rights and international sustainability principles.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL GREEN JUSTICE
Judicial innovation has greatly improved environmental safeguard, but it has also raised serious questions. Some commentators have expressed concern that excessive judicial activism could undermine democratic accountability by letting judges who are not accountable to the electorate set environmental policy. Developments such as Godavarman illustrate how protracted periods of judicial oversight can collapse the distinction between adjudication and governance. There are also stark implementation differences between court decisions and pollution levels. Despite the timely and progressive determinations of courts, pollution levels in Indian cities remain among the highest in the world, and deforestation continues at alarming timescales.
Another tension is between environmental protection and development needs. There is often a justification to close polluting industries, but the consequences for workers and their families raises questions about distributive justice. In the absence of parallel policies to rehabilitate affected communities, green justice may worsen fresh forms of inequality.
TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE UNDER ARTICLE 21
To effectively advance sustainability through Article 21, robust legislation and administrative structures must complement the interpretative authority of the judiciary. It is important not only to strengthen institutions of first-instance authority such as the National Green Tribunal (NGT), but also to expand access to timely and specialised adjudication of environmental matters, and to enhance the reach and force of environmental rights and duties in the context of economic planning, urban expansion and infrastructure development without compromising environmental concerns, as well as the notion of sustainability itself.
Public participation is also crucial. As the value of environmental rights and duties under Article 51A(g)[11] becomes more widely understood, it can create a greater sense of ecological responsibility. Finally, synchronising domestic obligations against international commitments such as the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals can also reinforce India’s constitutional commitment to green justice.
CONCLUSION
The interpretation of Article 21 to the realm of environmental protection is arguably the most extraordinary episode of Indian constitutionalism. The judiciary, through an expansive interpretation, has transformed the right to life into an assurance of ecological balance, clean air, clean water, and sustainable development. Cases like Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, M.C. Mehta, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, and Godavarman are examples of the judiciary’s innovation to connect the concept of constitutional rights with environmental justice.
However, meaningful strides remain. Without effective implementation, institutional strengthening, and policy coherence, judicial pronouncements in and of themselves do not lead to sustainability. To move forward towards a sustainable future, India must marry judicial activism with legislative initiatives and public engagement. In this way, constitutional green justice creates challenges not just for environmental protection, but for human dignity, intergenerational equity, and the survival of a constitutional democracy.
Author(s) Name: Aviral Gupta (Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies)
References:
[1] Constitution of India, art 21
[2] A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 SCR 88
[3] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
[4] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh 1985 AIR 652
[5] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598
[6] Virendra Gaur v State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577
[7] M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak case) (1987) 1 SCC 395
[8] M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Ganga Pollution case) (1988) 1 SCC 471
[9] M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Taj Trapezium case) (1997) 2 SCC 353
[10] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
[11] Constitution of India, art 51A(g)
