Constitutional provisions on Environment

 42nd Amendment, 1976

 Article 48A: The State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country
 Article 51A(g) (g) to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers
and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures;
 M. K. Janardhanam v. Dist. Collector, Tiruvallur
(2003)
 The phrase ‘to protect and improve’ in Art. 48A-
affirmative action
 Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) v.
State Of U.P. & Ors 1985 AIR 652
 Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.
 Popularly known as Doon Valley case
 Writ Petitions (SC) relate to the mining of lime stone
quarries in Dehradun mining area.
 Ordered closing of lime stone quarries causing large
scale pollution & adversely affecting safety and
health.
 Development is not antithetical to environment.
 Preamble- Socialist- state pays more attention to
social problems than on individual problems.
 decent standard of living for all
 “Democratic Republic”- people have the right to
know and to participate in the governmental policies
and access information of environmental policies
 D.D. Vyas v. Ghaziabad Development Authority,
1993 All-area reserved for public park.
 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
 Oleum Gas leakage gas
 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in
pollution free environment as a part of fundamental
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
 Evolved the principle of Absolute liability
 State had power to restrict hazardous industrial
activities
M. C Mehata, 1996 Goldman Prize recipient Asia
 TAJ MAHAL CASE (1996):
 pollution caused by Mathura Refinery, iron
foundries, glass and other chemical industries.
 the Taj Mahal and 255 other historic monuments
within the Taj trapezium were facing serious threat
because of acid rain.
 Right to live contains the right to claim
compensation for the victims of pollution hazard.
 M. C Mehata case 1988
 Ganges pollution case
 Leather Tanneries were polluting river Ganga
 Directions to set up effluent treatment plants within
6 months.
 Federal form of Govt

 Article 246: Division of subjects of legislation

between the union and state. VII schedule
 Art.254: In-consistenancy of laws.
 Art. 249: parliament to legislate in national interest
 Fundamental duties
 L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors AIR 1988
Raj 2.
 The Court directed the Municipality to remove dirt,
filth etc., from the city with in the period of six
months.
 Art. 51A: Right of citizens to move to Court for the
enforcement of the duty caste on the state.
 Ratlam Muncipality v. Vardhichand 1980 SC
 P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam,
(AIR 1993 Ker
 Art. 19(1) (a), the freedom of speech does not include
freedom to use loud speakers.
 Locus Standii
 Abhilash Textile v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation,
AIR 1988 Gujarat 57
 ..there is no right to carry on any business inherently
dangerous to society
 interests of society are to be balanced with the
interests of citizens to carry on business.
 Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
 no religion prescribes that the prayers are required
to be performed through amplifiers or beating of
drums
 the ringing of a church bell in the early morning
hours of Sundays and public holidays was held to be
a legal nuisance
 Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman
Barkati v. State of West Bengal, 1998 SCC OnLine
Cal 73, it was held that ‘Azan’ is an essential part of
Islam; however the use of loudspeakers is not an
essential part of ‘Azan’ itself.
 Right to Livelihood

 Pradeep Krishen v Union Of India & Others on 10

May, 1996
 MP Govt issued an order permitting collection of
tendu leaves from sanctuaries and national parks by
tribals.
 The order was challenged…
 Court did not quash the order
 Animal And Environment Legal Defence Fund v.
Union Of India And Ors on 5 March, 1997
 the grant of fishing permits to the tribals formerly
residing in the area was challenged as ultra tires the
Forest Act and the Constitution.
 The Court held that every effort should be made to
ensure that tribals, when resettled, are in a position
to earn their livelihood.
 Right to carry on trade or business

 Sushila Saw Mill vs State Opf Orissa & Ors

1995 AIR 2484
 Stopping operations within the prohibited area of
reserved forest and protected forests. Not violative of
Arts.19 (1)(g).
 restriction imposed includes total prohibition in rare
cases. It is also not violative of Art.14 being neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable nor discriminatory.
 State Of Himachal Pradesh & ... vs Ganesh Wood
Products & Ors. Etc 1996 AIR 149
 Establishing of katha industry
 “Obligation of sustainable development requires that
a proper assessment should be made of the forest
wealth & establishment of forest industries based on
forest produce…their working should be monitored
closely”
 Ivory Traders and Manufacturers
Association v/s Union of India AIR 1997 Delhi 267
 The petitioners are dealers and artisans in ivory who
carry on the business and trade in ivory including the
manufacture of articles derived from ivory lawfully
imported into India prior to the ban.
 "No person can commence or carry on business as a
dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made,
there from, or as manufacturer of such articles."
 Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Ors vs Union Of
India & Ors, SC 2003
 The appellants are engaged in the business of
manufacture and sale of articles relating to art and
craft manufactured from ivory.
 The appellants imported ivory from African
countries. They have manufactured certain articles
out of the same. It is not in dispute that the said
import had legally been made as there did not exist
any restriction in that regard.
 trade in imported ivory being dangerous to ecology
has been regulated by imposing total prohibition by
Wildlife (Protection) Amending Act of 1991
 Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers
Association v/s Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
 Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India does not
guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or
business which creates pollution or which takes away
that communities' safety, health and peace.
 the citizens have a right of a decent environment and
they have a right to live peacefully, right to sleep at
night and to have a right to leisure which are all
necessary ingredients of the right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
 AshwIn Jajal Vs. the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and Others AIR 1999 Bom. 35
 PIL by resident against Corp. seeking direction to
prohibit the display of illuminated advertisements by
use of neon lights in residential area
 Baleshwar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And
Others AIR 1999 All. 84
 UP state rule prohibited the operation of a saw mill
within 80km of any reserved or protected forest.
 Reasonable restriction, to stop uncontrolled cutting
of green trees disturbing ecological balance.