英语论文网

ental right under Art.21, and since the right to life connotes “quality of life”, a person has a right to the enjoyment of pollution free water and air to enjoy life fully. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for life, would be hazardous to life within the meaning of Art.21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a person can take recourse to Art.32 or 226 for removal of pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. [10]

The word ‘environment’ has a broad spectrum and within its meaning falls ‘hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance’. The State is thus obligated to maintain hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

The judiciary, in their quest for innovate solutions to environmental matters within the framework of public interest litigation, looked to constitutional provisions to provide the court with the necessary jurisdiction to address specific issues. Furthermore, Article 142 afforded the Supreme Court considerable power to mould its decisions in order that complete justice could be done. As the Supreme Court is the final authority as far as matters of constitutional interpretation are concerned, it assumes a sort of primal position in the Indian environmental legal system. [11] For example, the fundamental right contained in Article 21 is often cited as the violated right, albeit in a variety of ways.

In Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [12] , Bhagwati, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, stated that:

“We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.”

In A.P. Pollution Control Board v M.V.Nayudu, [13] the Supreme Court has made very valuable suggestions for improvement of the adjudicatory machinery under the various environmental laws. The main burden of these suggestions is that in all environmental courts, tribunal and appellate authorities, there should be a judge of the rank of a High Court or a Supreme Court Judge, sitting or retired, and a scientist or a group of scientists of high ranking and experience so as to help a proper and fair adjudication of disputes relating to environment and pollution.

There are many cases which have been brought up to the Supreme Court in relation to the right to pure environment under Art.21. Some of them are mentioned here under:

In the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India [14] the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries which were polluting water. In another case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India [15] the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation. The case is also famously known as the Taj Trapezium case.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [16] , the Court took cognizance of environmental problems being caused by tanneries which were polluting all water resources, rivers, canals, underground water and agricultural land.