Environment Law Final Project

“Constitutional Remedies under Part III of the Constitution of

India”

Submitted by:
Arjun Pandit
Div: B; PRN: 170102240697; Class: BBA/LLB

Of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, Pune

In
September, 2019
Under the guidance of:
Prof. PALLAVI MISHRA
Course in Charge
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Constituent of Symbiosis International University, Pune
 CERTIFICATE

The Project entitled “Constitutional Remedies under Part III of the Constitution of India”
submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Property Law as part of internal
assessment is based on my work carried out under guidance of Ms. Pallavi Mishra from
December to APRIL 2019. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of
any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in this project has been duly
acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate:

(Mr. Arjun Pandit)

Date: 31/01/2020
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere
thanks to all of them. I am highly indebted to Prof. PALLAVI MISHRA for her guidance and
constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project &
also for her support in completing the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents & member of Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for their kind co-operation and encouragement which help me in completion of this
project.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to industry persons for giving me such
attention and time.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the project and people
who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.
 INTRODUCTION
Indian concerns for environmental protection has evolved over a very conventional manner.
The status of environmental laws as declared is the law of the land. Although not the most
popular kind of law that one deals with or even comes across on a daily basis but in today’s
time as mankind faces the ‘heat’ of Climate Change we must understand that not only do these
laws need to be revisited but also require to be inculcated as a part of normal parlance. Under
part III, the fundamental rights which are essential for the development of every individual and
to which a person is inherently entitled by virtue of being human alone have been guaranteed.
Right to environment is also a right without which development of individual and realisation
of his or her full potential shall not be possible. Articles 21, 14 and 19 of this part have been
used for environmental protection. The Supreme Court has often discussed the laws that relate
to the environment and given it the law of the land status in a series of judgements such as
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India1, M.C. Mehta V. Union of India,2 etc. It is
now well established through various principles from the above mentioned cases that to live in
a pollution free environment is a matter of human rights. A more wide and inclusive
understanding of the likes can be taken from the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the
Constitution of India.
.

RESEARCH QUESTION
How has the expanded scope of fundamental rights played a role in understanding
environmental jurisprudence?
SCOPE AND AMBIT OF PART III
The Constitution of India when it was first drafted did not contain anything that addressed
environmental issues per se, the word “Environment” for that matter did not find place in the
constitution. The basic provisions such as Article 47, which talks about the states responsibility
towards public health, organisation of agricultural and animal husbandry on scientific levels
can be said to have their bearings on environment but only on an extended understanding. This
is the first instance of addressing environmental issues.
THE PREAMBLE
Before coming into what exists in the constitution it is also of relevance to know what the
Preamble of the Constitution says. The pattern of statehood in India is based on the Socialism.
The state plays more attention to social problems. Environmental pollution had emerged to be
one of the biggest social problems and was affecting different strata’s of the society. When
something so serious was happening, the state was bound to start acting on the same. Thus the
state is under an obligation to fulfil the basic aim of socialism, that is, to provide decent
standard of living to all which can be possible from a pollution free environment.3
The preamble further declares that, the great rights and freedoms which the people of India
intended to secure all citizens include justice, social, economic and political. Justice also

1
(1996) 5 SCC 647
2
AIR 1988 SC 1037
3 NANDA SUKANTA, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (2007)
includes environmental justice. Although the particular word ‘environment’ does not find a
place here, we can very well interpret this to include environmental justice. Environment as a
subject matter has entered in our day to-day life in such a way that we cannot ignore
deliberations on environmental matters when discussing about socio-economic or socio-
political scene of the country4
India declares itself to be a “Democratic Republic”, in a democratic set-up the people have the
right to participate in government decisions and the right to know and access information of
government policies.5 Environmental policies are to be framed for the betterment of the people
of the country, thus participation only makes sense or the same. Governmental policies in order
to be successful must be acknowledged by its citizens. This will also increase the rate of
acceptance and smooth flow of any policy.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Article 32 and 226 of the constitution o India resulted in a wave of environmental litigation.
Encouraged by an atmosphere of freedom and articulation in the aftermath of the Emergency,
the Supreme Court entered one of its most creative periods. Specifically, the court fortified and
expanded the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. In the process, the
boundaries of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 were
expanded to include environmental protection. The Supreme Court and various High Courts
through landmark judgements 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. 6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ARTICLE 21
The Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Life under Article 21. Article 21 reads “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by Law”. This has been understood as a basic human right and the concept of right
to life and personal liberty have been transformed to positive rights by judicial activism. New
developments to the concept of right to life witnessed a different dimension to the interpretation
of fundamental rights embodied in Article 21. Before this landmark case, fundamental rights
guaranteed in Part III was understood as negative in nature, imposing only negative obligation
on the State. 7 Only after these cases was this made to become a positive right and thus imposed
an affirmative duty on the State to enforce it.
Francis Carolie Mulhin v. Administrator Union Territory of Delh8 was the first case wherein
the Supreme Court acknowledged that thr right to life cannot be restricted to a mere animal
existence, It has to be of more essence that just physical survival. These were the words of J.
Bhagwati. “Right to life includes the right to life with human dignity and that goes along with
it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the
4 id
5 JASWAL P.S. AND JASWAL NISHANT, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (2009)
6 DIVAN SHYAM AND ROSENCRANZ ARMIN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA (2003)

7 ANAND, KHAN AND BHATT, LAW, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT, (1987)

8
AIR1981 SC 746
head and facilities for writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms with fellow human
beings. Of course, the magnitude and contents of the components of this right would depend
upon the extent of the economic development of the country but it must, in any view of the
matter include the right to basic necessities of life”.
Interpretations of the Court that followed talked about the right to live as a human being will
be assured only when man is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from
restrictions which inhibit his growth. The right to live guaranteed in any civilized society
implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These
are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social and cultural
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or Convention or under the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these human right.
DEHRADUN QUARRYING CASE
In July, 1983, representatives of the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun wrote
to the Supreme Court alleging that illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun region
was devastating the fragile ecosystems in the area. On 14 July, the court directed its registry to
treat the letter as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, with notice to the
government of Uttar Pradesh and the collector of Dehradun. Over the years the litigation grew
increasingly complex. The court issued its final judgment in the month of August, 1988, and
appointed several expert committees, and passed at least five comprehensive, interim orders.
None of these orders, however addressed the fundamental right to a healthful environment.
The case instated that The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to wholesome
environment as a fundamental right under Article 21. Development comes through and with
industrialization, which is the main factor behind the degradation of environment. To resolve
this issue the doctrine of sustainable development has come up. i.e., there must be balance
between development and ecology. Environmental degradation cannot be justified on the stake
of national interest. Administrative and legislative strategies for harmonizing environmental
and developmental values are a must and are to be formulated according to the needs of the
socio-economic conditions in the country. Courts play a very crucial role in determining the
scope of the powers and functions of administrative agencies and in striking a balance between
the environment and development. It was concluded that the need of the hour is to strike a
balance between the two i.e., development on one side and pollution free environment on the
other. A process by which development can be sustained for generations by improving the
quality of human life while at the same time living in harmony with nature and maintaining the
carrying capacity of life supporting eco-system. It focuses at integration of developmental and
environmental imperatives.

THOOTHUKUNDI MASSACRE
In the year 2013, tens of thousands of Thoothukudi residents flooded the streets of the south
Indian coastal town demanding immediate closure of Vedanta Sterlite's copper operations. The
mechanics of the outreach was central to the mobilisation. Artisanal fisher folk, shank divers,
small salt pan manufacturers, the Tuticorin Chamber of Commerce, auto rickshaw unions, mini
bus drivers and tea stall vendors quickly joined the call and stayed off work. They called for
an immediate halt of the ongoing work to construct a new copper smelter complex.
As the matter reached the Supreme Court in its appeal stage after the High Court upheld the
decision of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) the Apex Court in length
discussed the impact of running this plant and it’s bearing on the environment. As an outcome
of this case, Sterlite was charged a penalty of 100 Crores, payable to the District Collector of
Thoothkundi in the form of a fixed deposit, usable with interest on maturity for suitable
measures to improve the environment which will include water, soil within the vicinity of the
plant. The Apex Court also made it very clear that the judgement of the TNPCB which issued
directions to shut down the plant stands valid and must be upheld in the interest of
environmental protection.
Furthering this stance, it was also held that this power is derived from Article 21 of the
Constitution, if with sufficient proof it is established that the industry is degrading the
environment, breaching the mandate present in the Air Act9 , Water Act10 the High Court could
still direct the closure of the industry through its powers under Article 21 of the Constitution if
it came to the conclusion that there were no other remedial measures to ensure that the industry
maintains the standards of emission and effluent as laid down by law for safe environment11.
It is also pertinent to note that the court as a matter of appreciation, has mentioned in the
judgement that actions taken by volunteers in putting forth the writ petition is a welcome step
and such bodies deserve encouragement wherever their actions are found to be in furtherance
of public interest.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 19
The constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 21 of the constitution
guarantees right to decent environment and right to live peacefully. Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Indian constitution confers fundamental right on every citizen to practice any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business. This is subject to reasonable restrictions. A citizen
cannot carry on business activity, if it is health hazards to the society or general public. Thus
safeguards for environment protection are inherent in such a provision. The first instance of
use of Article 19 with respect to environmental issues was seen in the case of P.A. Jacod vs.
The Superintendent of Police Kottayam12 wherein the Kerala High Court held that freedom of
speech and expression as under article 19 (1) (a) does not include freedom to use loud speakers
or sound amplifiers. The Supereme Courts stance on the same was seen when it declared that
if there is a clash between environmental protection and the right to freedom of trade and
occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to
carry on a profession. 13

9
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
10 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
11 M.C. Mehta V. Union of India A.I.R. 1988, SC 1037 (India)
12 AIR 1993 Ker 1
13 Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise commissioner, A.I.R. 1954 220 (India)
 SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION
In India, environment protection is a part of our cultural values and traditions. In Atharvaveda,
it has been said that “Man’s paradise is on earth; this living world is the beloved place of all;
It has the blessings of nature’s bounties; live in a lovely spirit”. Earth is our paradise and it is
our duty to protect our paradise. The constitution of India embodies the framework of
protection and preservation of nature without which life cannot be enjoyed. The knowledge of
constitutional provisions regarding environment protection is need of the hour to bring greater
public participation, environmental awareness, and environmental education and sensitize the
people to preserve ecology and environment.
This frequency of Judicial Activism in the field of environmental case was and is seen as
extremely important. Right from the Doon Valley Case14 in 1985 right up till the Sterlite
Copper Plant Case15 in the year 2013 the relevance and interpretation of part III has been
revisited and refreshed. The ambit of these rights have been enlarged through judicial
interpretations from time to time. Through this mechanism, grievances have been addressed
and solutions have been provided. However with the most recent developments as seen in the
case of Sterlite Plant, it has been observed that the industry is pushing for the industry to begin
In this capitalist ethos the only change of attitude towards the environment we will be able to
see is when it starts becoming an absolute problem for those running the industry. The dangers
of pollutants is just one aspect of the entire problem, there exist many other serious issues that
haven’t been acknowledged. It is high time considerable steps are taken not only to bring about
change but also to inculcate the virtues of sustainable development.

14 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 1985, A.I.R. 652 (India)
15 Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013, 4 SCC 575 (India)