CSome winters the national capital wakes up with dense smog and severely low air quality, which paralyzes the city and poses serious health challenges. Directives by the Delhi government and the Directorate of Education respectively to ensure work from home and conduct classes in hybrid mode in schools do not bring much relief, as potential health hazards continue to haunt Delhiites and those living in the National Capital Region (NCR) districts.
Some of the major causes of air pollution include burning of fossil fuels, transportation, industrial processes, waste management, demolition, and agriculture. However, particulate matter is the deadliest of them all, causing major health hazards such as stroke, heart and lung diseases, killing a large number of people every year.
severity of particulate matter
Particulate matter is defined for the purpose of quality regulations. Particles 10 microns or less in diameter (PM 10) can enter the body through breathing and cause adverse health effects. On the other hand, fine particles include particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The particles emitted from the burning of diesel, called DPM (diesel particulate matter), are mostly less than 1 micron in size and constitute a sub-category of PM2.5. They also pose serious risks to children’s health. In this context, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) has amended the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) and mandated closure of schools in Delhi and NCR districts under Phase 3 and 4 of the plan. Previously, the decision to implement these measures was at the discretion of the state government. Also, as an additional directive under Phase 3 of GRAP, state governments will now have to make changes in the timings of public offices and municipal bodies in Delhi and NCR districts.
constitutional provisions
Although the original Constitution did not mention any provision for environmental protection, the concepts of natural justice and protection of nature were implicit in the entire constitutional scheme. That is why the Supreme Court, through literal interpretation, opined that clean environment will be included in the meaning of life under Article 21. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978,
However, over the years, especially following the growing demands for appropriate safeguards for the protection of the environment and sustainable development, India has adopted policies that require appropriate and effective constitutional provisions. This resulted in the inclusion of Articles 48A and 51A(g) as responsibilities of the state and citizens respectively. An important aspect of Article 48A is that the Constitution intends to make agriculture and the environment compatible with each other. In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar, 1991The Supreme Court read Articles 48A and 51A(g) along with Article 21 and held that the State is constitutionally bound to take steps to protect and improve the environment so that every citizen can enjoy his right to pollution-free air and water, which is essential for a meaningful life.
However, since the mid-1980s, increasing privatization and economic liberalization have led to large-scale environmental degradation which has led the judiciary to step in to provide guidelines to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The commitment of the judiciary towards social well-being in general and environmental protection in particular has resulted in the innovative use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution as a tool for social and environmental justice.
Furthermore, a healthy environment is also one of the elements of a welfare state. Under Section 2(A) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, ‘Environment’ includes water, air and land and the interrelationships that exist between these three and human beings, other living beings, plants, microorganisms and property. The right to live in an environment free from the threat of disease and infection is an important attribute of the right to live with human dignity.
The right to live in a healthy environment was first recognized as part of Article 21 of the Constitution Center for Rural Litigation and Entitlement vs. State of UP, 1985In the Supreme Court in 1987 MC Mehta vs Union of India The right to live in a pollution-free environment has been considered a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Disasters and environmental protection
During disasters and calamities, whether natural or man-made, the issue of protecting the environment assumes greater importance. The concept of ‘absolute liability’ was introduced for disasters arising from the storage, leakage or use of hazardous substances such as the Oleum gas leak case. While strict liability is the concept that makes a defendant responsible for the consequences of an action even if he or she did not intend to cause harm or was not at fault, absolute liability is the imposition of legal responsibility on a party for harm caused regardless of fault or negligence, but with some exceptions. Furthermore, strict liability is used in both criminal and civil law.
Two more principles that hold importance in cases of disasters affecting the environment include the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter pays principle’. These concepts were explained Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996The precautionary principle is an approach in which states should adopt precautionary measures when there are serious threats to the environment, According to the United Nations, this principle needs to be widely adopted by nations to the best of their capabilities, In cases where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone cost-effective measures that could prevent environmental degradation, The precautionary principle is a part of the law of the country and should be applied when there is a risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage, The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable, Sustainable development should be given priority,
On the other hand, the polluter pays principle is the generally accepted practice that those who are responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent harm to human health or the environment. For example, a factory that produces a potentially toxic substance as a by-product of its activities is held responsible for its safe disposal. The polluter pays principle is part of a broader set of principles to guide sustainable development around the world.
public trust doctrine
Another major idea behind the principles of environmental protection is the public trust principle. In MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath, The Supreme Court explained this principle as a reflection of a social contract between the state and the people, in which the state acts as a trustee while the people or community own the resources. Although the State retains certain rights over the said resources, it shall not use them for personal gain and shall be used only for the benefit of the people.
In India, clause (b) of Article 39 provides that ownership of material resources shall rest with the community and clause (c) of the Article states that it shall be the responsibility of the State to prevent any concentration of the means of production. Furthermore, when the state takes steps for the welfare of the people, it is the duty of the citizens to allow the state to do so. Thus, the relations of the state and citizens are directed jus publicumor public law. It also refers to the right, title or dominion of public ownership which means that the government has the right to own the resources for the benefit of the public. This is very well expressed in the Constitution, especially in the Directive Principles.
For example, in -Radheshyam SahuThe Supreme Court held that the principle of public trust arises from the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution protecting life of the people and places the State under an obligation to maintain public parks for the citizens.
As far as the effects of climate change are concerned, the apex court… MK Ranjitsingh vs Union of India, 2024 The right against the adverse effects of climate change is recognized as part of the right to life under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Despite the fact that national and foreign governments have claimed to take steps to protect the environment, their claims are not satisfactory. Furthermore, since judicially recognized rights cannot be claimed directly unless it is linked to any of the rights given in Part III of the Constitution, the State may also be reluctant to step in with the concern. Therefore, this is an opportune time to clearly include the right to a clean and healthy environment in the Constitution to make both the State and the citizens equally responsible.
The author is Chairman, Center for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi
published – December 23, 2025 08:30 AM IST
