Law and You > Environmental Laws > Constitutional Provisions for Environment Protection

The constitution of India is not an inert but a living document which evolves and grows with time.  When our constitution was drafted it did not contain any specific provisions on the environment and even the word “Environment” did not find a place in the constitution. However, there are many items in the legislative lists which enable the Centre and the State to make laws in the field of environment like public health, sanitation, agriculture, etc. In India, the concern for environmental protection has not only been raised to the status of fundamental law of the land i.e. the Constitution of India, but it is also associated with human rights. It is the basic human right of every individual to live in a pollution-free environment with full human dignity. The subject of environmental protection is kept in the concurrent list of the Constitution. In this article, let us discuss constitutional provisions for environment protection

Constitutional Provisions for Environment Protection through the Preamble:

The Preamble of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949, DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

• The preamble of the Constitution says that our country has a “Socialistic” approach of the government. In the socialist pattern of the government, the State pays more attention to social problems than individual problems. Environmental pollution has emerged as one of the biggest social problems. Hence it is being regarded as a real problem affecting the society at large. Hence the state is under an obligation to fulfill the basic aims of socialism, that to provide a decent standard of living to all its citizen, which can be possible from a pollution-free environment.
• The preamble also guarantees justice, social, economic and political. Justice also includes environmental justice. Environmental Justice is often seen as a part of social and economic justice. Protecting the environment ensures equitable access to natural resources, clean air, and water, and safeguards vulnerable communities who are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to a healthy environment as part of the broader right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and this aligns with the principles of justice as outlined in the Preamble.
• The Preamble guarantees liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. Many communities, particularly indigenous groups, have strong cultural and religious connections to nature. Protecting the environment helps preserve their liberty to practice their traditions and beliefs. Furthermore, the liberty to express concerns about environmental issues and advocate for environmental protection is an important component of a democratic society.
• The Preamble guarantees equality of status and opportunity. Environmental issues disproportionately affect marginalized and vulnerable populations, leading to environmental inequality. Pollution, deforestation, and climate change often hit the poorest sections of society the hardest. Ensuring environmental protection aligns with the principle of equality by ensuring that all citizens have equal access to a clean and healthy environment, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
• The Preamble’s emphasis on fraternity and dignity underscores the importance of collective responsibility for national integrity and the well-being of all citizens. Protecting the environment promotes dignity by ensuring individuals can live in a clean, safe, and healthy environment. Environmental degradation undermines human dignity by causing health issues, displacement, and economic loss, particularly among vulnerable communities.
• The Preamble also declares India that India is a “Democratic Republic” country. In a democratic setup, people have the right to participate in government decisions. They also have the right to know and access to information on government policies. It is very much important for the success of environmental policies.

While the Preamble of the Constitution of India does not directly mention environmental protection, its core principles of justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity have been interpreted by courts to include the protection of the environment.

Article 21 (Right to Life) and Environmental Protection:

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.  It lays down that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Though Article 21 does not explicitly mention environmental protection, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted the right to life to include the right to a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment. Through judicial activism, environmental protection has become an essential component of the right to life under Article 21. Over the years, several landmark rulings by the Supreme Court have expanded the scope of Article 21 to include environmental rights.

Article 21 has played a pivotal role in the development of environmental jurisprudence in India. Through progressive judicial interpretation, the right to life has been expanded to include the right to a healthy environment, making environmental protection an essential constitutional right. The courts have used Article 21 to impose duties on the government, industries, and individuals to ensure that environmental degradation does not harm public health and well-being. Thus, the relationship between Article 21 and environmental protection is one of the cornerstones of India’s legal framework for safeguarding the environment.

Article 14 (Equality Before Law) and Environmental Protection:

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. While Article 14 does not explicitly mention environmental protection, it has played a significant role in the development of environmental jurisprudence through its broad interpretation by the judiciary. Link between Article 14 and Environmental Protection can be explained as follows:

Non-Arbitrariness in Government Action:

Article 14 mandates that all government actions must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. This principle applies to environmental governance as well. Government decisions regarding environmental clearances, regulation of industries, and enforcement of pollution control measures must adhere to the principles of equality and fairness. For instance, arbitrary or biased grant of environmental permits that endanger public health or favour certain individuals or industries can be challenged under Article 14 for violating the principle of equality.

Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment:

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India, has interpreted the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the broader right to life under Article 21. In several cases, Article 14 has been invoked alongside Article 21, arguing that environmental degradation or government policies leading to environmental harm violate the principle of equality, as they disproportionately affect vulnerable or marginalized communities. A polluted environment can deny equal access to resources, clean air, water, and a safe living environment, violating the equality principle.

Equal Access to Environmental Resources:

Article 14 is relevant in ensuring that natural resources like clean water, air, forests, and land are equally available to all citizens and not unfairly exploited by specific individuals or industries at the cost of the general public. The judiciary has intervened in cases where environmental degradation disproportionately affected certain groups, upholding their right to equal access to clean and safe environments.

Environmental Justice:

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in environmental decision-making—relates to Article 14’s guarantee of equality. When government actions, such as industrial zoning, disproportionately harm certain communities (e.g., marginalized or economically weaker sections), they can be challenged as violating Article 14. Courts have taken the stance that environmental rights are linked to social justice, ensuring that the state does not act in a way that exacerbates inequalities through environmental degradation.

Article 14 plays a crucial role in environmental protection by ensuring that governmental actions related to the environment are non-arbitrary, equitable, and fair. It provides a constitutional basis for citizens to challenge discriminatory or harmful environmental practices and policies that disproportionately affect certain groups. Through judicial interpretation, Article 14 has been extended to safeguard equal access to natural resources and uphold the principles of environmental justice, thus contributing significantly to the protection of the environment.

Article 19(1)(g) Freedom to Practice Profession, Occupation, Trade, or Business:

Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to all citizens to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. While this right is essential for ensuring economic freedom, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). These restrictions can be imposed by the state in the interest of the general public, including environmental protection. This we can understand by following situations:

Reasonable Restrictions for Environmental Protection:

The state has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on businesses and industries under Article 19(6) to ensure that economic activities do not harm the environment. For example, industries that pollute air, water, or land can be regulated, restricted, or even shut down if they are found to violate environmental laws or cause harm to public health and the environment. The Supreme Court of India has upheld such restrictions, emphasizing that the right to carry on business cannot override the need for environmental protection and the public interest in maintaining a healthy environment.

Balancing Economic Development with Environmental Sustainability:

While Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to trade and business, this right is balanced against the need to maintain environmental sustainability. Courts have played a crucial role in ensuring that businesses are allowed to operate as long as they comply with environmental regulations and do not cause irreparable harm to natural resources. For instance, in cases related to industries that cause pollution, mining activities, or deforestation, the judiciary has balanced the right to business with the need to safeguard the environment.

Polluting Industries and Public Interest:

Courts have imposed restrictions on polluting industries by invoking Article 19(6), which allows for restrictions on the right to trade or business for the sake of public health and the environment. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), the Supreme Court ordered the relocation of polluting industries around the Taj Mahal to protect the monument from air pollution. This ruling restricted the rights of industries under Article 19(1)(g) to protect the environment, emphasizing the public interest in preserving a healthy and pollution-free environment.

Environmental Regulations and Licensing:

Businesses, particularly those in sectors like manufacturing, mining, and construction, are required to obtain environmental clearances and adhere to pollution control measures. The state can impose restrictions, such as limiting emissions, regulating waste disposal, or requiring environmental impact assessments (EIA) before allowing a business to operate. These restrictions, although they may limit the freedom to carry on business, are justified under Article 19(6) as they serve the larger goal of environmental protection.

Sustainable Development Principle:

The courts have also invoked the principle of sustainable development, which seeks to balance the need for economic growth with environmental protection. While Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to economic activities, the concept of sustainable development ensures that these activities do not compromise the environment for future generations.

Article 19(1)(g) ensures the freedom to practice any profession or carry on a business, but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions for the sake of environmental protection. The state can regulate and limit business activities that are harmful to the environment, ensuring that economic growth does not come at the cost of environmental degradation. Through judicial interpretation, the courts have balanced the rights of individuals to engage in trade or business with the public interest in preserving a healthy environment, aligning with the broader principle of sustainable development.

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Environmental Protection:

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution of India (Articles 36–51), provide guidelines for the governance of the country. Although they are not enforceable by any court, these principles are considered fundamental in the governance of the country and aim to create a social framework where justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity prevail. Several DPSPs directly and indirectly support environmental protection.

Key Articles Dealing with Environmental Protection:

Two key provisions in the DPSPs explicitly deal with environmental protection:

• Article 48A of the Constitution of India lays down that “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” Article 48A was inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. It marked a significant development in India’s environmental law, making it the responsibility of the State to take steps to protect and enhance the environment, forests, and wildlife. he Directive has led to the enactment of various environmental laws and policies, such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. It serves as a constitutional mandate to the government to prioritize environmental sustainability.
• Article 47 of the Constitution of India lays down that “The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties…” Though this article primarily focuses on public health and nutrition, environmental protection is closely related to health and quality of life. Pollution, deforestation, and climate change have a direct impact on public health, and the State’s duty to improve public health necessarily involves environmental protection.

Other DPSPs Related to Environmental Protection:

• Article 39(b) directs the State to ensure that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are distributed to serve the common good.
• Article 39(c) mandates that the State should ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the detriment of the common good.
• Article 43 promotes the idea of a decent standard of life for all citizens, which cannot be ensured without a clean and healthy environment. Ensuring clean air, water, and natural resources is a prerequisite for a dignified and healthy life.

These provisions indirectly emphasize sustainable development and the equitable distribution of natural resources. Environmental conservation is vital to prevent the monopolization of resources and ensure that natural resources like land, water, and forests benefit all sections of society, particularly marginalized groups.

Although the DPSPs are non-justiciable, the Supreme Court of India has used them to interpret and strengthen environmental protection through various judgments. The Directive Principles have guided the courts in expanding the scope of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life), to include the right to a healthy environment.

The Directive Principles of State Policy provide a constitutional mandate for environmental protection. Articles 48A and 47 specifically highlight the State’s duty to safeguard the environment and public health. While these provisions are not enforceable by the courts, they have been used to guide policy-making and legal interpretation, particularly in conjunction with Article 21 (Right to Life). The judiciary has frequently cited these articles in promoting sustainable development, the equitable use of natural resources, and environmental protection. Thus, the DPSPs play a vital role in shaping India’s environmental jurisprudence and governance.

Fundamental Duties and Environment Protection:

The Fundamental Duties of citizens are enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution of India and were introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. While Fundamental Rights are enforceable, Fundamental Duties are not. However, they play a crucial role in reminding citizens of their responsibilities toward the nation and society. One of the key duties relates directly to environmental protection.

Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India lays down that “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”

Significance of Article 51A(g):

• Public Responsibility: This provision establishes that environmental protection is not only the responsibility of the government but also of every individual citizen. It emphasizes that each citizen should actively work to protect and improve the natural environment.
• Constitutional Obligation: While this duty is not legally enforceable, it holds moral and constitutional value, inspiring environmental awareness and activism among citizens.
• Compassion for Living Creatures: The duty goes beyond environmental protection to include kindness toward all living beings, reinforcing the idea of compassion toward animals and biodiversity conservation.

Although Fundamental Duties are not enforceable by law, courts have increasingly referred to Article 51A(g) in environmental cases. The courts have used this duty to remind individuals and industries of their obligations to the environment and to encourage responsible behaviour.

PIL and Environmental Protection:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has played a transformative role in environmental protection in India. PIL allows citizens, NGOs, and activists to approach the judiciary directly in cases where public interest is at stake, even if they are not directly affected by the issue. Through PILs, individuals and organizations have brought several environmental concerns before the courts, leading to significant judgments and the development of environmental jurisprudence in India.

How PIL Works for Environmental Protection:

• Wider Locus Standi: Unlike traditional litigation, PIL allows any individual or group, acting in the public interest, to file petitions on behalf of those who may not have the resources or ability to approach the courts directly. This is especially important in environmental cases, where marginalized communities often suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation.
• Judicial Activism: Courts, particularly the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, have adopted an activist approach in environmental PILs. They have interpreted the Constitution and environmental laws progressively to protect and enhance environmental rights.
• Expansion of Fundamental Rights: Through PILs, the courts have interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to a healthy and clean environment. This has provided a powerful constitutional basis for environmental protection.

PILs have been instrumental in transforming India’s environmental jurisprudence, allowing for greater public participation and judicial intervention in matters of environmental protection. Courts, through PILs, have enforced environmental regulations, recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment, and held industries and governments accountable

Landmark Environmental PIL Cases in India:

In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 case, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air. The court emphasized that industrial activities should not degrade the environment and harm public health. This case established that environmental degradation directly affects the quality of life and therefore falls under the purview of Article 21. The key principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this case is right to a pollution-free environment.

In MC Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086  (The Oleum Gas Leak Case) case, following a gas leak from the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry in Delhi, the Supreme Court held that industries involved in hazardous activities have an absolute liability to compensate for harm caused to the environment and people, without any exceptions. This case expanded Article 21 to recognize that protecting life requires regulating industries to ensure public safety and environmental protection. The key principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this case is of absolute liability for hazardous industries.

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652 (Dehradun Quarrying Case) case, which involved extensive quarrying in the Mussoorie hills, which led to environmental degradation and threatened the ecology. The Supreme Court ordered the closure of several limestone quarries and emphasized the right to life as including the right to live in a safe and healthy environment. The court emphasized the precautionary principle and affirmed that environmental degradation violates the right to life. Key principle established by the Supreme Court is environmental degradation is a threat to life.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 at 660 case, which involved the pollution of water resources by tanneries in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court introduced the precautionary principle (measures must be taken to prevent environmental harm) and the polluter pays principle (polluters must bear the costs of environmental harm). These principles became integral to India’s environmental jurisprudence and were linked to Article 21’s protection of life, thereby establishing a stronger legal framework for environmental conservation.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIRONLINE 1996 SC 711 case, the Supreme Court held that the government, as a trustee of all natural resources, must protect them and not allow their exploitation for private use. The court applied the public trust doctrine, which holds that certain resources (such as air, water, and forests) are for public use and must be preserved for future generations. This doctrine reinforced that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to natural resources being preserved for the public and future generations. In this case the Supreme Court laid down the Public Trust Doctrine.

In MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1991 SCC (2) 353, (Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case) case, which dealt with the rising levels of air pollution in Delhi caused by vehicular emissions. The court ordered several measures, including the introduction of CNG (compressed natural gas) for public transport, to reduce air pollution. The Supreme Court held that the right to clean air is part of the right to life under Article 21, and directed the government to implement stricter pollution control measures. In this case the Supreme Court introduced the right to clean air

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 case, the scope of Article 21 was expanded to include the protection of forests, as deforestation has a direct impact on the environment and the quality of life. The Supreme Court issued sweeping directions for the conservation and protection of forests across India. It reinforced the idea that environmental protection is essential to sustaining life, thus linking it to the right to life under Article 21.

In MC Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), AIR 1988 SC 1115 case, the Supreme Court took up the issue of pollution in the Ganga River and ordered the closure of several polluting industries along its banks. The court linked pollution control with the right to life, emphasizing that access to clean water is essential for the health and well-being of citizens. The case became a turning point in India’s environmental jurisprudence, underscoring that the right to a clean environment includes protection of water bodies.

In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 1987 AIR 1109 case, the Supreme Court referred to Article 48A while ruling on a case involving the construction of a hotel in an ecologically sensitive area. The court held that whenever ecological issues are raised, the court must bear in mind Article 48A and ensure that the environment is protected.

In MC Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), AIR 1997 SC 734 case, where industrial pollution near the Taj Mahal was damaging the monument. The Supreme Court invoked Article 51A(g) to remind the public and industries of their duty to protect the environment, emphasizing that every citizen has a role to play in protecting national heritage and the natural environment.

In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (Jallikattu Case) 7 May, 2014 case, where the case involved cruelty to animals during the Jallikattu festival. The Supreme Court held that compassion for animals, as mandated by Article 51A(g), is part of the duty of every citizen. The court banned the use of bulls in Jallikattu, citing this constitutional duty to show compassion toward all living creatures.

In Goa Foundation v. Union of India (Mining in Goa Case), 1 April, 2014 case, where illegal and excessive mining in Goa was causing severe environmental degradation. The Supreme Court invoked Article 51A(g), stating that mining companies and individuals have a duty to protect the environment. The court imposed restrictions on mining activities to preserve the ecological balance.

In Hamid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996) case, there was negligence on the part of state in supplying water from the hand pumps. Due to this negligence colossal damage was caused to people of locality. On the basis of Article 48A, the Court held that the State is liable for not performing its duty.

In L K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) case, the applicant contended that Municipality of Jaipur is negligent in maintaining hygiene in the state. The Court established the true scope of Article 51A and held that that this provision not only ensures duties of the citizen but also creates right in favour of citizen to monitor the conduct of government bodies.

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) case, the Court differentiated between Articles 48A and 51(a)(g). Court opined that Article 48A talks about environment while Article 51(a)(g) talks about natural environment. The Court held that the complete ban on the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls, and bullocks was constitutionally valid. It stated that the ban did not violate the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 as the restrictions were reasonable and in the interest of public order, morality, and health. It ruled that Article 48 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates the state to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds of cattle and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves, provides a constitutional basis for the Act. The judgement emphasized that the state has the authority to impose restrictions on the slaughter of animals to protect cattle, which is crucial for agriculture and the rural economy.

In Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corporation (1987) case, the Court said that environmental pollution is violation of fundamental right embodied under Article 21.

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India case, the Court held that the state has responsibility to protect environmental rights of citizen vested under Article 21, 48A, 51A(g).

In S Jagannath v. Union of India (1996) case, the apex Court banned shrimp farming by modern technology because it was causing degradation of ecosystem, polluting ground water, and reduction of plantation.

Provisions through Union- State Relation:

India has a federal system of governance.  Under the federal system, governmental power is shared between the Union and the State governments. Part XI of the Constitution governs the legislative and administrative relations between the union and the states. Parliament has the power to legislate for the whole country, while the State Legislatures are empowered to make laws for their respective states. Article 246 of the Constitution divides the subject areas of legislation between the union and the states into three Lists:

• The Union List (List I) in the seventh schedule to the Constitution contains subjects over which only the Parliament has exclusive power to legislate. This includes defence, foreign affair, atomic energy, inter-state transportation. Shipping, major ports, regulation of air traffic, regulation and development of oil fields, mines and mineral development and inter-state rivers.
• The State List (List II) in the seventh schedule to the Constitution contains subjects over which only State Legislatures have exclusive powers to legislate. It includes public health and sanitation, agriculture, water supplies, irrigation and drainage, and fisheries.
• The Concurrent List (List III) in the seventh schedule to the Constitution contains subjects on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate. Concurrent List includes forest, the protection of wildlife, mines and mineral developments not covered in the union list, population control, and family planning, minor ports and factories.
• Parliament has residual power to legislate on subjects not covered by the three lists.

The subject of the forest, the protection of wildlife is moved from the State List to the Concurrent List by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976. When a Central Law conflicts with a State Law on a concurrent subject the Central Law prevails. A State Law passed subsequent to the Central Law will prevail, however, if it has received Presidential assent under Article 254.

The Parliament is also empowered to legislate in the ‘national interest’ on matters enumerated in the State List. Parliament may also enact Laws on State subjects. E.g. the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 was enacted by the Parliament pursuant to consent resolution passed by the State Legislatures

Provisions for Implementation of International Conventions and Treaties:

The objectives of international environmental agreements would be effectively achieved if all relevant states become parties to them and rigorous implementation including monitoring of compliance was ensured. India is a contracting party or signatory to various international treaties and agreements relating to regional or global environmental issues.

Article 253 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament “to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body”. Article 253 read with Entries no. 13 and 14 of the Union List is that the Parliament can pass any law on environment protection and the same cannot be questioned before the courts on the ground that the Parliament lacked legislative competence. Thus the Parliament has very wide power of legislation including the subjects mentioned in the State List provided those issues are addressed at any international conferences, association or other body or it is the implementation of any international treaty, agreement or convention.

Conclusion:

The Constitution of India provides a robust framework for environmental protection, primarily through Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Rights, and Fundamental Duties. These constitutional provisions for environment protection reflect a commitment to sustainable development and environmental conservation. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, thus making environmental protection a fundamental right of every citizen. This has empowered courts to safeguard environmental quality as part of the right to life. Article 48A directs the State to take steps to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife. Though not enforceable in a court of law, this article has guided policy-making and has been used by courts to frame environmental obligations for the State. Article 51A(g) imposes a duty on every citizen to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. This provision promotes environmental stewardship at the individual level and complements the State’s responsibilities under Article 48A.

The judiciary has played a critical role in expanding the scope of these constitutional provisions through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and progressive judicial interpretations. Key principles such as the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, and sustainable development have been embedded into Indian environmental jurisprudence. Courts have also emphasized that development must be balanced with environmental protection.

Despite these constitutional provisions and judicial activism, the implementation of environmental laws and policies often faces challenges such as delays, weak enforcement, and conflicts between development and conservation.

Related Posts:

• Criminal Law Provisions for Environmental Protection
• Nuisance and Environmental Pollution (Tort)
• Negligence and Environmental Pollution (Tort)
• Strict Liability and Environmental Pollution (Tort)

For More Articles on Environmental Laws Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here