Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun & Ors vs. State of U.P. & Ors[1], decided on 12th March 1985, by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has been widely recognised as one of the first cases in Indian jurisprudence regarding the balance between economic needs of the society and ecological balance. The case, also known as the Dehradun Valley case, stemmed from ecological damage caused by limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie-Dehradun area.
The petitioners filed a special leave petition under Article 32[2] before the Apex Court praying the court to stop this ecological harm. To ascertain the same, the court formed the Bhargav Committee to monitor limestone quarries and evaluate their environmental impact due to the seriousness of environmental deterioration and its effect on ecological balance.
The Supreme Court in its judgment issued multiple instructions to regulate mining, provide environmental preservation, and promote the restoration and planting of trees in degraded areas. The court’s decision to close some quarries while allowing others to operate with strict limitations showed a shift in Indian legal principles favouring environmental priorities over economic interests.
Regardless, in this paper, I shall highlight how the judgement erred in categorically a right to a healthy environment as a coherent of personal liberty under Article 21 to avoid considering the question of harmonisation of two competing fundamental rights, i.e., a right to a healthy environment under Article 21[3] and right to trade and business under Article 19[4].
Failed recognition of a right to healthy environment
Justice Bhagwati writing for the court did not address what contour of fundamental rights (presumably Article 21) were in question due to the activities of the limestone quarrying. The judgment merely mentioned the “need of safeguarding the right of the people to live in a healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without hazard to them or their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affection of air, water and environment”[5].
Such an omission of the court seems rather more incongruent in light of Justice Bhagwati’s previous decision in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978[6], wherein his lordship categorically widened the ambit of Article 21. The case of Maneka Gandhi came to be when Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the authorities to restrict her travel outside, as she was considered a key witness in the case against Sanjay Gandhi. In a fierce legal battle against it, Maneka Gandhi claimed the same as a violation of her right to live with dignity flowing from Article 21.
Herein, the court had a very wide contour to the scope of Article 21 wherein the court considered the concept of living with dignity to encompass any right that was considered important for an individual’s life. In light of the same, it seems rather challenging to consider the decision of the court in rural litigation to not categorically recognize the existence of a coherent right to health under Article 21 in light of the ratio of Maneka Gandhi.
The decision of the court to not consider the existence of a right to a healthy environment a subset of Article 21 can be seen as a tactic of the court to avoid a larger confrontation with the right to trade and business of the limestone quarries and the impact on the lives of the employees due to potential closure of their workplaces. Whilst the court may have held noble interests of reducing the negative externalities on the workers the same caused greater harm to the development of environmental law jurisprudence in India.
The decision premised a basic jurisprudence which was relied upon in numerous forthcoming cases, such as in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987[7], wherein the case involved the closure of tanneries situated in Kanpur due to the emission of industry waste by them in Ganga river. Herein also the court accepted the contention of the petitioner without actually recognising a coherent right to a healthy environment under Article 21. The same also resonated in the case of Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 1987[8]later.
Instead of shying away from harmonising these two competing rights, the court could have entered into a detailed conversation as to how the right of trade and occupation/right to carry business originating from Article 19 does not provide these businesses an unfettered right to carry on their business whilst causing an extreme public nuisance to the environment.
The court could have even considered the ambit of reasonable restrictions along the lines of the ratio of the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Abhilash Textiles v Rajkot Municipal Corporation, 1988[9], wherein the court faced with a similar issue, categorically put the foot down and recognised that right to trade and occupation does not come at the cost of the environment. Such a deliberation by the Apex court in the Rural Litigation case would have aided the growth and development of environmental law jurisprudence for the forthcoming decades and would have helped in extracting benefits from the writ mechanism in the most prudent fashion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. was a significant moment in the development of environmental law jurisprudence in India. Albeit, the judgement failed to seize a crucial opportunity to resolve the conflict between the right to a healthy environment and the right to trade and occupation. This omission created a deficiency in environmental legal principles, despite Justice Bhagwati’s broad interpretations of Article 21 in the Maneka Gandhi case. The court’s hesitance to directly confront this issue hindered the establishment of a coherent legal structure for reconciling environmental conservation with economic pursuits. Later cases also grappled with this issue, emphasising the lost opportunity for a clearer and more forward-thinking approach to environmental legislation in India.
[1] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP, AIR 1982 SC 652.
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 32.
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 19.
[5] Supra Note 1.
[6] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[7] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037.
[8] Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109.
[9] M/s Abhilash Textiles v Rajkot Municipal Corporation, AIR 1988 Guj 57.
Author: Saksham Gadia and Lavanya Malani, 5th year BBA LL.B students at Jindal Global law School.
