Some of the leading causes of air pollution are fossil fuel combustion, transportation, industrial processes, waste management, demolition and agriculture. However, particulate matter is the deadliest of all and causes major health risks such as strokes, heart and lung diseases, which kill a large number of people every year.
Severity of particulate matter
Fine dust is defined in the context of quality regulations. Particles with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM 10) can enter the body through breathing and negatively affect health. On the other hand, fine particles include particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Particles released from the combustion of diesel, called DPM (Diesel Particulate Matter), are usually less than 1 micron in size and are a subcategory of PM2.5. These cause serious health risks, even in children. In this context, the Air Quality Management Commission (CAQM) has amended the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) and made it mandatory to close schools in Delhi and NCR districts in phases 3 and 4 of the plan. Previously, the decision to implement these measures was a decision of the state government. Moreover, as an additional guideline under Phase 3 of the GRAP, the state governments will now have to stagger the timings of public offices and municipal bodies in Delhi and NCR districts.
Constitutional provisions
Although the original Constitution made no provisions for environmental protection, the concepts of natural justice and protection of nature were enshrined throughout the constitutional system. This is why the Supreme Court, by way of literal interpretation, is of the view that clean environment must be included in the meaning of life under Article 21 in Improve.
However, over the years, especially following the growing demand for proper safeguards for environmental protection and sustainable development, India has adopted policies for which it needs good and effective constitutional provisions. This led to the insertion of Articles 48A and 51A(g) as responsibilities of the state and citizens respectively. An important aspect of Article 48A is that the Constitution aims to make agriculture and the environment compatible. In Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 1991the Supreme Court read Articles 48A and 51A (g) together with Article 21, concluding that the State is constitutionally obliged to take steps to protect and improve the environment so that every citizen can enjoy his right to pollution-free air and water necessary for a meaningful life.
However, since the mid-1980s, increasing privatization and economic liberalization have caused widespread environmental degradation, forcing the judiciary to intervene and issue guidelines to balance economic development and environmental protection. The judiciary’s commitment to social welfare in general, and environmental protection in particular, has resulted in the innovative use of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, as a tool for social and environmental justice.
Moreover, a healthy environment is also one of the elements of a welfare state. According to Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, ‘environment’ includes water, air and land, and the interrelationship existing between these three and human beings, other living beings, plants, micro-organisms and property. The right to live in an environment free from the risk of disease and infection is an important characteristic of the right to live with human dignity.
The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in National Disputes and Rights Kendra vs. State of UP, 1985. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled MC Mehta vs Union of India treated the right to live in a pollution-free environment as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Disasters and environmental protection
In times of disasters and calamities, both natural and man-made, the issue of protecting the environment takes on greater significance. The concept of ‘absolute liability’ was introduced for disasters arising from the storage, leakage or use of hazardous substances, such as in 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 did not intend to cause harm or was not at fault, absolute liability is the imposition of legal liability on a party for harm caused, regardless of fault or negligence, but with certain exceptions. Moreover, strict liability is used in both criminal and civil law.
Two more principles that take on significance in disasters affecting the environment are the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter pays’ principle. These concepts were explained in the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, 1996. The precautionary principle is an approach that requires states to take precautionary measures when there are serious threats to the environment. According to the United Nations, this principle should be widely adopted by countries, according to their own capabilities. In cases where serious or irreversible damage is threatened, a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures that could prevent environmental degradation. The precautionary principle is part of land law and must be applied when there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development must be a priority.
On the other hand, the polluter pays principle is the generally accepted practice that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. For example, a factory that produces a potentially toxic substance as a byproduct of its operations will be held responsible for its safe disposal. The polluter pays principle is part of a set of broader principles to guide sustainable development worldwide.
Doctrine of public trust
Another important idea behind the principles of environmental protection is the public trust doctrine. In MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine as reflecting a social contract between the state and the people, in which the state serves as trustee while the people or communities own the resources. Although the state has certain rights over these resources, it will not use them for personal gain and will only be used for the benefit of the people.
In India, clause (b) of Article 39 states that material resources shall be owned by the community and clause (c) of the article says that the State shall have the responsibility to prevent any concentration of the means of production. Moreover, when the state takes steps for the good of the people, the citizens have a duty to give the state permission to do so. Thus, the relationship between the state and the citizens is guided by public lawor public law. It also refers to the right, title or dominion of public property, meaning that the government has the right to own resources for the benefit of the public. This is very well expressed in the Constitution, especially in the directive principles.
For example, indoors Radhey Shyam Sahuthe Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of public trust arises from the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution which protects the lives of the people and mandates the state to maintain public parks for the citizens.
The Supreme Court agrees with the consequences of climate change MK Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India, 2024 recognized the right against the adverse effects of climate change as part of the right to life under Article 21 and also of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Despite the fact that national and foreign governments claim to have taken steps to protect the environment, their claims are far from satisfactory. Moreover, because rights recognized by the courts cannot be directly claimed unless they are linked to one of the rights provided for in Part III of the Constitution, the state may be reluctant to take steps with concern. It is therefore the right time to explicitly include the right to a clean and healthy environment in the Constitution, so that both the state and citizens are equally responsible.
The author is president of the Center for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi
Published – 23 Dec 2025 08:30 IST
#healthy #environment