g

1. Right to Clean Environment: A basic human Right
Geeta Institute of Law, Panipat, N.C.R
Author: - Lisha Thakral
B.A.LL. B -4 semester
Geeta institute of law, Panipat, N.C.R
Lishathakral.gil2019@gmail.com,8295062774
ABSTRACT
A healthy environment is an essential aspect of the right to life, not only for human beings but
also for other animals on the planet. ... Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: 'No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by
law.
Human rights and environment are inter-related, inter-connected, mutually responsive and
crucial issues. Both are concerned with development and promotion of human welfare. Everyone
likes to live in a healthy environment, which is basic human right. Environment pollution is a
worldwide problem and India, too, is facing the menace. While human rights are necessary to
promote the personality development of human beings, material comfort and healthy
environment are necessary to safeguard conditions conducive to such a personality development.
Without hygienic good nobody can strive towards his goal. That is why there is a natural link
between Environment, Development and Human Rights. Principle of 1 of the declaration of the
Nation Conference on Human Environment also emphasis on this fact, it states. “Man has the
fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environmental of a
quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.”
The right to a clean environment is fundamental. It is both dependent upon and a precondition to
a number of other human rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.
For example, the preservation, conservation, and restoration of the environment are necessary for
the enjoyment of the rights to health, to food, and to a decent, dignified life. The right to a clean
environment is not a purely individual right.
Everyone likes to live in a healthy environment which is a basic human necessity. Healthy
environment is a nature's gift. Air, water, and land are essential for all living beings. It has been
recognized ever since Stockholm Declaration that both aspects of man's environment, the natural
and man-made are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights - even
the right to life itself. How human rights more particularly Right to Life fare in the protection of
environment? Should this human right be sacrificed for environment or the two can be mutually

2. compatible for sustainable society? This is very delicate issue demanding deeper perspective and
altruistic outlook. This paper highlights significance of wholesome environment in context in
Right to Life, which is a basic guarantee for growth and development of individual, society and
nation itself. Human beings should be central concern for sustainable development, and that they
are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with Nature
Keywords: Development, Environment, Human Rights, Sustainable Development
Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by United Nations (UN) member
countries in 1948, the principle of basic human rights has gained global acceptance. In recent
years, proponents of environmental justice have extended that principle into the sphere of the
environment, driven by a recognition that increasing scarcity of and conflict over natural
resources requires new approaches for securing a peaceful future [see “Global Resources: Abuse,
Scarcity, and Insecurity,” EHP 112:A168–A175 (2004)]. At the heart of this issue are two key
questions: Are the forests, water, air, and food that are essential to our survival common goods to
be shared by all? Or are they scarce economic goods, like minerals and timber, that are optimized
when they are subject to commercial pressures of supply and demand?
“A human rights argument about natural resources can easily become one extreme of a two-
extreme argument,” says Carl Bauer, a research fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF), a
nonprofit policy think tank in Washington, D.C. On the one hand, he explains, the term “human
right” carries an absolute value that can be hard to trump—it’s like arguing against freedom. At
the other extreme is the concept of a free market unhindered by government oversight, which can
exert a similar compelling attraction for advocates of a market-driven world economy.
Navigating past freighted terms, though, we can examine the factors that shape how we allocate
and use natural resources. In a time when the World Bank estimates that more than 1 billion
people lack access to safe water, this most essential of resources has become a flash-point in the
discussion of human rights versus market forces.
I. Environment as a basic right
The concept of human rights in general emerged after the Second World War, but the right to a
healthy environment, as one of those human rights, was never a priority. Today, this right is an
emerging concept that is being hotly debated in the human rights arena. A healthy environment is
an essential aspect of the right to life, not only for human beings but also for other animals on the

3. planet. Violation, therefore, of the right to healthy environment is potentially a violation of the
basic right to life.
Environmental deterioration could eventually endanger life of present and future generations.
Therefore, the right to life has been used in a diversified manner in India. It includes, inter alia,
the right to survive as a species, quality of life, the right to live with dignity and the right to
livelihood. In India, this has been expressly recognized as a constitutional right. Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution states: 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedures established by law.' The Supreme Court expanded this negative right in
two ways. Firstly, any law affecting personal liberty should be reasonable, fair and just.
Secondly, 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 clean environment.
II International scenario
The human conference on human environment held at Stockholm in 1972. Popularly called as
the Magna Carta of human environment warned that the “natural resources of the Earth including
air, water, land, flaura and fauna and especially the representative sample of natural ecosystem
must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful
planning or management as appropriate.” The report on the World Commission on Environment
and Development suggested 22 legal principles for environmental protection and sustainable
development. ‘Caring for the Earth 1991’ and the ‘Earth Summit’ of 1992 also declared that
human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
III. Indian scenario
Although the real panic in India came to be felt only after the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, yet it
began concentrating on the problem of pollution soon after the Stockholm conference. India
parliament passed many statutes to protect and improve the environment viz. Wildlife
(protection) Act, 1972; Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974; the forest
(conservation) Act, 1989; the air (prevention and control of pollution) Act,1981 and above all the
Environment (protection) Act, 1986. Further the constitutional (forty-second Amendment) Act,
1976 incorporated two significant articles viz. Article 48-A and 51A (g) thereby making the
Indian Constitution the first in the world conferring constitutional status to the environment
protection.
The Penal Code too at that time contained provisions making pollution a crime.

4. Section 368 talks about public nuisance where under noise pollution can inter alia be
The concern for an integrated environment in the context for planning for economic development
was specifically raised in the fourth five year plan, which mainly talked about the obligation of
each generation to have a sustainable development and also about the inter- dependence of living
things and their relationship with land, air and water.
The National Committee on Environmental Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was
established in February, 1972 and within its purview were covered several environmental
projects like human settlements, planning, survey of natural eco- systems, like wetlands and
spreading of environmental awareness. In every State and in Union Territories environmental
boards have eventually been set up and the major object of the committee was to advise on
environmental problems and to make recommendations for their improvement. This office was
finally made the Environment Division of the Department of Science and Technology.
Another Committee, designated as the Tiwari Committee came to be set up in 1980 (also referred
to as the committee for environmental protection). It not only considered the laws which protect
the environment but also the 200 odd laws which in their functioning didn’t virtually protect the
environment. In its review it noted the following major short comings:-
The laws lacked adequate provisions for helping the machinery for
Later on the question, ‗whether right to a clean environment is part of the right of life‘ was
examined by the Supreme Court in the case Subhash Kumar V. State of Bihar.12 Where it
declared that the right to a wholesome environment formed an integral part of the right to life
guaranteed by article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Also the Court stated: ―The right to life
could be a basic right which is guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian constitution and it

5. includes the correct of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If
something endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a subject has the
correct to own recourse to article 32 of the constitution for removing the pollution of water or air
which can be prejudicial to the standard of life.‖
The Indian Constitution is one of the few in the globe with the particular environmental
protection clauses. The Directive Principle of State Policy and the chapter on basic
responsibilities explicitly governments the domestic dedication to defending and improving the
environment. In articulating these measures, the Indian judiciary has created a doctrinal web to
safeguard human rights and to promote the cause of environmental justice and remind people of
their basic obligation for the preservation of the environment by taking shelter in fundamental
rights and fundamental duties as mentioned in the Constitution of the Republic of India. This
present paper attempts to evaluate the constitutional regulations on environmental protection and
the Indian judiciary's notable role in interpreting these provisions for environmental justice in
India. This idea of provision of the Right to Healthy Environment was not included when the
Constitution was drafted and approved by the Constituent Assembly. For instance, the topics in
the state list on which the state can create regulations are government health, hygiene,
agriculture, soil, water, and fisheries. The Union List includes items such as nuclear energy, oil
fields and resources, interstate rivers and valleys, and fisheries for which only Parliament has the
power to make laws. The Preamble to the Constitution clearly shows that socio-economic justice
is the foundation of the Constitution.
In the Karnataka High Court judgment of the case Lakshmipathy V. State of Karnataka15 made
the following observations: The movement for restoration and maintenance of a livable setting
needs curb of power of narrowly destined body agencies in appropriation of the dwindling
surface area of land and water not already irrevocably appropriate, environment Protection isn't a
preoccupation of the educated and affluent. The disposal and therefore the management of waste
material and governmental regulation of polluting industries is public interest destined. The right
to life inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution doesn't disappoint of necessities of qualitative
life that is feasible solely in associate degree setting of quality. Where, on account of human
agencies, the standard of air and therefore the quality of setting area unit vulnerable or affected,
the Court wouldn't hesitate to use its innovative power among its jurisdiction to enforce and
safeguard the correct to life to push public interest. Although the on top of rulings acknowledge
that right to wholesome setting is implicit the Constitutional guarantee of Article 21, but, we
have a tendency to should acknowledge that right to life isn‘t absolute too. If the State guarantees
to its voters the safety of life, the voters should owe a obligation to State to take care of its
holiness. Man has to not merely live, however to measure well and living well suggests that a
living ethical, virtuous and healthy and happy life. My right of living involves my duty to my
fellow-men to permit them identical condition of life. Happiness and prosperity in an
exceedingly society is an onto perform.

6. HUMAN RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT: JUDICIAL This national extension to right to life was
recognized even without specific reference to actual and specific violations of fundamental right.
A critical survey to catena of cases exhibits two broad tendencies. The first approach seems
heavily concerned with perilous consequences of environmental pollution and immediate threat
to sustenance and survival. Whereas the second approach strives to enhance the quality of
environment health and sanitation safety and security from hazardous process, ecological
balance, preservation of eco-system and bio-diversity. Sustainable development and inter-
generational equity. This often resulted in the closure of environmentally malign industries such
as time stone and stone quarrying in Doon and Saproon valleys, tanneries at Kanpur, Vellore and
Calcutta, hazardous industries in Delhi Rajasthan and elsewhere, banning of aqua culture, prawn
framing and other. Most often than not the Supreme court and High Courts have recognized
these rights without an attendant fundamental right by issuing set of directives under their writ
jurisdictions under article 32 and 226 of the constitution respectively. In Dehradun Quarrying
case where the illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun region was devastating the
fragile ecosystems, the supreme court in an activist tone and tenor held: We are not oblivious of
the fact that natural resources has got to be for the purposes of social development but one can
not forget at the same time the tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and
care so that ecologically and environment may not be affected in any serious way… it has always
to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind are not intended to be exhausted
on the generation. The Supreme Court passed at least five comprehensive interim orders
recognizing right to ecological balance as fundamental right. But none of these orders, articulate
the actual fundamental right infringed in spite of the copious reference to articles 21 and 32 of
the constitution. Since the exercise of jurisdiction under article 32 presupposes the violation of
the fundamental right, it becomes necessary to reasonable. Drive the fundamental right that the
supreme court had in view when it used orders.
The Human Right to decent environment was recognized on Ratlam Municipality case where
neither the writ jurisdiction was involved nor any branch of fundamental right was alleged.
While hearing a appeal under special leave petition from the municipality against High Court’s
approval of magisterial order under section 133 CrPC to remove fifth, menacing state of public
health, malodorous fluids from the discharge of alcohol plant, breeding of mosquitoes, snakes
and scorpions, the supreme court speaking through Justice Krishna Iyer in an unmistakable terms
developed an alternative ratio: A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise
purpose of preserving health and providing better facilities cannot run away from its principal
duty, by pleading the financial inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facts of human
right and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies. The judgments invigorated fresh
stamina into the seemingly dull legislation of public nuisance having wider ramifications in
controlling enviro health derogation at grass root level. None the less it is quite astonishing to
note the plea for human right was developed without any specific reference to Articles 21, 48-A
and 51A (g). Rather the court preferred to be guided by the notion of social justice and public
health. Giving a clarion call to rejuvenate public law glossed with human right values Justice

7. Krishna Iyer further held: There is an urgent need to focus on ordinary man and a radical change
in the hierarchy of values served by civil procedure. The municipality should not come to terms
of paramount principle of governance by improving public health provisions. In Bayer India Ltd.
V. State of Maharashtra, a human habitation proximate to hazardous chemical process was
thoughts to be confronted with perilous dimensions of chemical exposure and consequential
threat to life. The court formulated the view that: Nothing can be more fundamental than the
issue of public safety and right to life and where these are infringed upon, the courts will have to
act in a general interest of the citizen and not the Government and public bodies
Conclusion “If you want to clean up the environment, start with your mind. It starts there.”
Following a long course of active interpretation of constitutional and legislative clauses by the
judiciary and vigorous efforts of some green citizens, the Indian environmental scenario has
undergone a positive change. Today, the environmental consciousness imported by the courts,
mingled with subsequent legislative efforts in the later years, introduced the right to environment
as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution of India. The Courts in India have
played a distinguishing role in gradually enlarging the scope of a qualitative living by engaging
themselves into, and resolving various issues of environmental protection. Consequently,
activities posing a major threat to the environment were curtailed so as to protect the individual‘s
inherent right to wholesome environment as guaranteed under various instruments for protection
of legal and human rights. The attainment of the common purpose therefore depends upon the
proper performance by every individual of his function and duties. Every citizen has social
obligations to himself, to his family, to his neighbors, and to the society of which he is a unit.
The right to life is, therefore, the most fundamental of all rights, as it is the very core of
humanity. It means a claim to so live that the existence does not jeopardies the existence of
others. It is not only responsibility of individual alone but State is bigger partner in preserving
environment and in realization of right to life with human dignity. It is essential to create a
shared international vision of long-term goals and to build the international frameworks that will
help each country to play its part in meeting these common goals. There should be compatibility
between environment and economic development. Living standards beyond basic minimum are
sustainable only if consumption standards everywhere have regard for long term sustainability.
Reference: -
egalservicesindia.com/article/1509/Right-to-Clean-Environment: -A-basic-Human-Right.html
http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v2(11)/Version-1/H021101042047.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2397197