Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Environmental Laws > Constitutional and Statutory Provisions > Constitutional Provisions – 02
Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976 added a new part IV-A to the Constitution dealing with “Fundamental Duties of Citizen” in the Constitution of India. Article 51-A (g) specially deals with fundamental duty with respect to the environment it says 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”
The fundamental duty imposed on every citizen is not only to “protect” the environment from any kind of pollution but also to “improve” the environment quality if it has been polluted. So it is the duty of every citizen to preserve the environment in the same way as nature has gifted it to all of us.
Case Laws:
In L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2 case, the Court held that the Municipality has failed to discharge its “primary duty” resulting in the acute sanitation problem in Jaipur city which is hazardous to the life of the citizens of the city. In this case the Court explained the true scope of Article 51-A in the following words: “We can call Article 51-A ordinarily as the duty of the citizens, but in fact it is the right of the citizens as it creates the right in favour of the citizens to move to the court to see that the State performs its duties faithfully and the obligatory and primary duties are performed in accordance with the law of the land. Omissions or commissions are brought to the notice of the court by the citizen and thus, Article 51-A gives a right to the citizens to move the court for the enforcement of the duty cast on the state, instrumentalities, agencies, departments, local bodies and statutory authorities created under the particular law of the state”.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 359 (Quarry case) case, the activity of quarrying was being carried out in Deharadun Mussourie region. Limestone was extracted by blasting out the hills with dynamite. This resulted in cave-ins and slumping due to the mines dug deep into the hillsides, which is an illegal practice per se. Due to lack of vegetation, many landslides occurred which killed villagers and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural lands. A PIL was filed. In this case, Justice R.N. Mishra opined that “preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only the government but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution”.
In Kinkari Devi v. State, AIR 1988 HP 4 case, the petitioners have sought cancellation of mining lease for excavation of limestone as it posed danger to adjoining land, water resources, pastures, ecology, and environment and sought compensation for damage. In this case, Justice P.D. Desai remarked: “There is both a constitutional pointer to the state and a constitutional duty of the citizens not only to protect but also to improve the environment and to preserve and safeguard the forest, the flora and fauna, the rivers and the lakes and all other water resources of the country. The neglect or failure to abide by the pointer or to perform the duty is nothing short of a betrayal of the fundamental law which the state and indeed the every Indian is bound to uphold and maintain”.
In M. C. Mehta v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 Ori 225 case, a writ petition was filed to protect the health of thousands of people living in Cuttack and adjacent areas who were suffering from pollution from sewage being caused by the Municipal Committee Cuttack and the SCB Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. In this case, the court pointed out that “right and duty co-exists. There cannot be any right without any duty and there cannot be any duty without any right”. Insanitation leads to slow poisoning and adversely affects the life of the citizens and hence it falls within the purview of Article 21 of the constitution. It is the duty of every citizen to see that rights which he has acquired under the constitution are fulfilled.
In Sitaram Chhaparia v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 Pat 134 case, public interest litigation was filed by residents of a locality against a tyre retreading plant emitting carbon-di-oxide gas and other obnoxious gases from its furnaces causing harm to the environment of the locality. The Court held that protecting the environment is now a fundamental duty under Article 51-A of the Constitution and accordingly the respondents were directed to wind up their industry.
In Abhilash Textiles v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, AIR 1988 Guj 57 case, the Court held that notices asking the petitioner to stop discharging the effluents from the factory on a public road or drainage having the natural environment on the pain of closing the factory are valid.
In Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622 case, residents of a locality within limits of Ratlam Municipality tormented by stench and stink caused by open drains and public excretion by nearby slum-dwellers moved the Magistrate under S. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code to require the Municipality to do its duty to towards the members of the public. The Court directed the Municipality to remove dirt, filth, etc., from the city within the period of six months. The Court made it clear that it is not the duty of the court to see whether the funds are available or not. It is the duty of the administration and municipal council to see that primary duties are fulfilled.
Previous Topic: Centre State Relations and Environmental Protection
Next Topic: Tort Law and Environmental Protection