Environmental Law Article 21 and Environmental Law cases T. Damodar Rao v Special Officer Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad The question in contention was whether the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Income-tax Department, Hyderabad, can legally use the land owned by them in a recreational zone within the city limits of Hyderabad for residential purposes contrary to the developmental plan. The High Court came down heavily on the mismanaged urban planning condition of the Hyderabad city and even called it as the „ugliest city‟ in India. Subsequently, the Court discussed about the master plan which was made by the Municipal Administration, which divided the city into residential, commercial, recreational or other areas. The court observed that “The approval of such a draft plan makes the plan final and legally binding. It would not then matter whether the land belongs to a private individual or to the State. The draft plan once approved would have the undoubted effect of restricting and curtailing even denying the rights of enjoyment of the land which otherwise belongs to the land owners.” The land in question was classified as land for recreational purposes but LIC and IT-Dept. wanted to construct residential quarters, which was heavily criticised by the Court. “In that extent, environmental law has succeeded in unshackling man's right to life and personal liberty from the clutches of common law theory of individual ownership. Examining the matter from the above constitutional point of view, it would be reasonable to hold that the enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without life cannot be enjoyed. There can be no reason why practice of violent extinguishment of life alone should be regarded as violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoilation should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution.”
Other Comments: One of the first case to invoke the use of Article 21 in protecting the environment, but the AP HC also relied on the SC‟s decision of R. L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U. P. Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa A site in the city of Bangalore was reserved as an open space and subsequently had been reserved for a public park. However, pursuant to the orders of the State Government, and by a Resolution, the Bangalore Development Authority allotted the open space in favour of the appellant, a private medical Trust, for the purpose of constructing a hospital. This allotment and diversion of the user of the site was challenged before the High Court by the respondents, as residents of the locality and as general public. A single-judge bench of the HC allowed the construction, which was subsequently held to be illegal by a division bench of the High Court. The Appellant contended before the SC that BDA was correct in allotting the land for hospital.
Although the SC judgment was based on jurisdiction, function and other legal aspects. It had few references to Environmental Law “Any unauthorised deviation from the duly sanctioned scheme by sacrificing the public interest in the preservation and protection of the environment by means of open space for parks and play grounds and 'ventilation' will be contrary to the legislative intent, and an abuse of the statutory power vested in the authorities.” “Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds for children promenade for the residents, and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital interest to be taken care of in a development scheme.”
V. Lakshmipathy vs State Of Karnataka In this case, a PIL was filed in the Karnataka High Court with regard to the operation of certain polluting industries in residential and open spaces and which was alleged to be in gross violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. “The right to life inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not fall short of the requirements of qualitative life which is possible only in an environment of quality. Where, on account of human agencies, the quality of air and the quality of environment are threatened or affected, the Court would not hesitate to use its innovative power within its epistolary jurisdiction to enforce and safeguard the right to life to promote public interest. Specific guarantees in Article 21 unfold penumbras shaped by emanations from those Constitutional assurances which help give them life and substance. In the circumstantial context and factual back-drop, judicial intervention is warranted especially since the Supreme Court of India has already laid the foundation of juristic activism in unmistakable language of certainty and deep concern.” The HC allowed the writ petition and held that the establishment of industries was in gross violation of the existing rules and norms. LK Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan In this case, a public spirited individual named LK Koolwal filed a petition in the Rajasthan High Court with regard to sanitation in the city of Jaipur. The Courts relied on the Directive Principles of State Policy for giving directions to the municipality to clear Jaipur city within a period of 6 months. Ivory Trades and Manufacturers Association v Union of India In this case, Ivory Trades and Manufacturers Association challenged the ban imposed on trade of ivory by claiming that it is violative of freedom of trade and occupation and is arbitrary and unreasonable. Apart from this claim, they made certain vague claims like the fact that the ban of ivory has no relation with regard to saving wildlife and there is no link between ivory and elephant conservation in Indian forests. Dismissing all such claims, the Delhi HC held that no citizen has a fundamental right to trade in ivory or ivory articles, whether indigenous or imported. Assuming trade in ivory to be a fundamental right granted under Article 19(1) (g), the prohibition imposed thereon by the Amendment Act is in public interest and in consonance with the moral claims embodied in Article 48A of the Constitution. The ban on trade in imported ivory and articles made
therefrom is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and does not suffer from any of the maladies, namely, unreasonableness, unfairness and arbitrariness. On the argument that the government should but all the ivory stocked with the petitioners, it was held that it is not necessary for the State to pay compensation to the petitioners for extinguishment of title of the petitioners in imported ivory or article made therefrom. The amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 fall within the power and competence of the Parliament as the same is meant to protect the Indian elephant. In order to achieve that purpose, the Parliament has undoubtedly, the power to deal with matters which, effectuate the same. It can legislate with regard to all ancillary and subsidiary subjects including the imposition of ban on trade in imported ivory of all descriptions, whether drawn from mammoth or elephant, for the salutary purpose of the preservation of the Indian elephant. Subhash Kumar vs. State Of Bihar In the given case, the petitioner approached the SC through a PIL alleging that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company are polluting the river Bokaro by discharging slurry from their washeries into the river and the concerned agencies are indifferent to the cause. The Supreme Court held that “If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken by person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity.” The SC dismissed the petition since it was not based on material facts and reprimanded the petitioner for abusing the process of Court for settling personal grudge. Murli S. Deora vs. Union of India SC observed that “Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, inter alia, provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. Thenwhy a non-smoker should be afflicted by various diseases including lung cancer or of heart, only because he is required to go to public places? Is it not indirectly depriving of his life without any process of law? The answer is obviously-yes. Undisputedly smoking is injurious to health and may affect the health of smokers but there is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. In any case there is no reason to compel nonsmokers to be helpless victims of air pollution.” After analysing the importance of a clean environment and pollution free air under Article 21, the SC banned smoking in public places.
