Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law.”

Despite being framed as a negative right, the Supreme Court expands it in two ways. First, any laws affecting personal liberty should be reasonable, fair and just. Second, the court recognized several liberties implied by Art.21. It is by the latter the court interprets the right to the life to encompass the right to a healthy environment. In Subash Kumar, one of the earliest cases on this issue, the court opined that the right to life included the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water.

The role of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter is increasingly reflected in various judgment through judicial activism and has resulted in a powerful and an ever-expanding fundamental rights system. 

In Maneka Gandhi, a liberal view of the scope of article 21 was taken, so that article 21 became the repository of all rights which are necessary for the enjoyment of life. The liberal reading of article 21 opened the way for the incorporation of the right to a wholesome environment within the protection of the Constitution.

The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 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.

            Excessive noise creates pollution in the society. 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. In PA Jacob vs. The Superintendent of Police Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1, the Kerala High Court held that freedom of speech under article 19 (1)(a)  does not include freedom to use loud speakers or sound amplifiers.  Thus, noise pollution caused by the loud speakers can be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

           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 this.  The Supreme Court, while deciding the matter relating to carrying on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B. Bharucha  Vs Excise commissioner, Ajmer (1954, SC 220) observed that, if there is clash between  environmental protection and right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any occupations.

             Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India resulted in a wave of environmental litigation. The leading environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court includes case of closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region (Dehradun Quarrying case, AIR 1985 SC 652), the installation of safeguard at a chlorine plant in Delhi (M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037) etc.  In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, the Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays Principle” are essential features of “Sustainable Development.”

             At local and village level also, Panchayats have been empowered under the constitution to take measures such as soil conservation, water management, forestry and protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspect.

             Environment protection is 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 day to bring greater public participation, environmental awareness, environmental education and sensitize the people to preserve ecology and environment.