By Aditya Ranjan

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides as follows: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The scope of Article 21 was a bit narrow till 50s as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in AK Gopalan vs Union of India;(1950). In this case, it was observed that “personal liberty” only means “liberty relating to or concerning the person or body of the individual”.  At that time Gopalan’s case was the leading case in respect of Article 21 of the Constitution, but post Gopalan’s case, the of scope of Article 21 has been expanded and modified gradually through different decisions of the Supreme Court and it has been held that interference with the freedom of a person at home or restriction imposed on a person while in jail would require authority of law.

After Gopalan’s case (1950), in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India; (1978), the Supreme Court of India opened up a new dimension and gave the widest possible interpretation to the word “personal liberty”. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) observed: “The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19”.

Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) further observed: “The attempt of the court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the Fundamental Rights rather than to attenuate their meaning and content by a process of judicial construction”.

It was observed that Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. It must conform to the norms of justice and fair play. It cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.

The protection of Article 21 was further widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India;(1984), related to the issues of bonded labourers and weaker sections of the society. It was observed as follows:

“Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity free from exploitation. The state is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. The Central Government is therefore bound to ensure observance of various social, welfare and labour laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the directive principles of the state policy”.

In Pt. Parmananda Katara vs Union of India; (1989), the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Supreme Court observed “once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man.” It was held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied with the police.

In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar;(1991), Supreme Court held: “Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art, 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Art. 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists”.

The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan vs State of AP; (1993), and the Supreme Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements.

The Supreme Court held: “This Court has held that several unenumerated rights fall within Article 21 since personal liberty is of widest amplitude. The following rights are held to be covered under Article 21:

1. The right to go abroad.  

Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi; 1967.

2. The right to privacy. 

Gobind vs State of MP; (1975). 

3. The Right against solitary confinement.

 Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration; (1978).

4. The Right against bar fetters.

 Charles Sobraj vs Supdt. Central Jail; (1978).

5. The Right to legal aid.

MH Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra; (1979).

6. The Right to speedy trial.

Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary,State of Bihar;1980.              

7. The Right against handcuffing.

Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration; (1980).

8. The Right against delayed execution.

TV Vatheeswaran vs State of Tamil Nadu, 1983.

9. The Right against custodial violence.

Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra, (1983).

10. The Right against public hanging.

AG of India vs Lachma Devi; 1986.

11.  Doctor’s Assistance.

 Paramananda Katra vs Union of India;(1989).

12.  Shelter.

 Shantistar Builders vs N.K. Totame; (1990)

It was observed in Unni Krishnan’s case that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental Rights and it extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the education as well, as the right to education flows from the right to life.

In Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan;(1997), the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a working woman at her workplace as amounting to the violation of right of gender equality and right to life and liberty which is a clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in the absence of enacted law to provide for effective enforcement of basic human rights of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment laid down the guidelines to be followed by all employers, public or private, until suitable legislation was enacted on the subject.

In Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr vs Union of India; (2017), Supreme Court held, “The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.

Based on the rationale of Puttaswamy (supra), Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India; (2018), unanimously held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was unconstitutional in so far as it criminalized consensual sexual conduct in private between adults of the same sex and was violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Read Also: Supreme Court quashes FIR in rape case after parties claim to be living happily married

In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India & Ors, (2020) while dealing with the issue of internet shutdown in the state of Jammu & Kashmir,  Supreme Court tried to strike  a balance between the liberty and security concerns so that the right to life could be secured and enjoyed in the best possible manner and declared that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19 (1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).

Thus, it is clear that the provision in respect of life and personal liberty was constructed narrowly at the initial stage but was developed gradually and a liberal interpretation was given to these words. New dimensions have been added to the scope of Article21 from time to time.

The discoveries of egalitarian goals in fundamental rights have resulted in the explosion of new rights. Thus, Article 21 of the Constitution has sprung up a whole lot of human rights jurisprudence. It has been held that there are several implied rights under Article 21 although these are not specifically mentioned.

The Supreme Court through various judgments has gradually expanded and modified the scope of right to life to include several new rights viz. Right to pollution free water and air, right to a decent environment, the right to health, and access to healthcare, protection of under-trial, right of every child to a full development, right to electricity, maintenance and improvement of public health, providing human conditions in prisons, maintaining hygienic condition in slaughter, housing for beggars, immediate medical aid to injured persons, starvation deaths, the right to know, the right to open trial, inhuman conditions in aftercare home, children in jail being entitled to special protection, etc.

In the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to create a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. If in any circumstance the state is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. This scope further has been extended even to innocent hostages detained by militants in shrine who are beyond the control of the state. 

In view of the interpretation given to the words “life” and “personal liberty” in various decisions of the Supreme Court, it can be said that the protection of life and personal liberty has got multi-dimensional meaning and any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the State which deprives the life or personal liberty of a person would be against the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution.

These rights so available to citizens are yet to be realised by the deprived sections of the society because of the several constraints viz. financial, social, educational, lack of awareness, etc. India needs to make a genuine effort to realise these goals. Strong institutional foundation is needed for the said purpose.

Read Also: OCI: Supreme Court notice on plea challenging curtailing of rights

The foundations of social, political, administrative, legal, democratic, economical, and cultural structure structures of India are quite strong in India. The strength of these structures if utilised efficiently and effectively would help us to realise the goals of constitution for the all-round development of every Indian enabling all to lead life in the most dignified manner. The rights so interpreted by the Supreme Court will certainly help the nation to realise the goal of “sarvodaya” and “antyodaya” but that need a continuous effort from all the corners of the society.

-The author is Advocate–On-Record

By Aditya Ranjan

In the 1980s, increasing concern about the effects of economic development on health, natural resources and the environment led the United Nations to publish the Brundtland Report, in 1987, which is also known as “Our Common Future”. The report defined Sustainable Development as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It alerted the world to the urgency of making progress toward economic development that could be sustained without depleting natural resources or harming the environment.

Sustainable development is primarily concerned with redistributing resources towards poorer nations whilst encouraging their economic growth. It envisages that equity, growth and environmental maintenance are simultaneously possible and that each country is capable of achieving its full economic potential whilst at the same time enhancing its resource base. Achieving this would require technological and social change.

Three fundamental components to sustainable development are environmental protection, economic growth and social equity. The environment should be conserved and our resource base enhanced, by gradually changing the ways in which we develop and use technologies. Sustainable Development is not just about the environment, but about the economy and our society as well. 

Sustainable Development is development based on patterns of production and consumption that can be pursued into the future without degrading the human or natural environment. It involves the equitable sharing of the benefits of economic activity across all sections of society, to enhance the well-being of humans, protect health and alleviate poverty. If sustainable development is to be successful, the attitudes of individuals as well as governments with regard to our current lifestyles and the impact they have on the environment will need to change.

In June 1992, a comprehensive plan of action to build a global partnership for sustainable development to improve human lives and protect the environment, called Agenda 21, was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, by more than 178 countries adopted. To ensure effective follow-up of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCED) and to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992.  Member Nations agreed that a five-year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002, the full implementation of Agenda 21, the programme for further implementation of Agenda 21 and the commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed. The Millennium Summit in September 2000 at UN Headquarters in New York, the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by Member States. The Millennium Summit led to the elaboration of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce extreme poverty by 2015.

 In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 20-22 June 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development—or Rio+20—-took place. It resulted in a focused political outcome document which contains clear and practical measures for implementing sustainable development. The objective was to produce a set of universal goals that meet the urgent environmental, political and economic challenges facing our world.

In 2015, United Nations Member States adopted The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. The SDGs replaced the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which started a global effort in 2000 to tackle the indignity of poverty. The SDG is the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are integrated as they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability. These are an urgent call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership.

Member states recognized that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.

The Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are as follows:-

• End poverty in all its forms everywhere
• End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
• Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
• Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
• Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
• Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
• Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
• Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
• Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
• Reduce inequality within and among countries
• Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
• Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
• Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
• Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
• Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
• Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
• Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) supports countries in achieving the SDGs through integrated solutions for the reason that complex challenges of the world today -from stemming the spread of disease to preventing conflict- cannot be tackled in isolation. For this UNDP, focuses on systems, root causes and connections between challenges—not just thematic sectors—to build solutions that respond to people’s daily realities.  

Achieving the SDGs by 2030 requires the partnership of governments, private sector, civil society and citizens alike to make sure we leave a better planet for future generations. However, as per the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020, the 15-year global effort to improve the lives of people everywhere through the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 was already off track by the end of 2019. The world had been making progress—although uneven and insufficient to meet the Goals — in areas such as improving maternal and child health, expanding access to electricity and increasing women’s representation in government. Yet even these advances were offset elsewhere by growing food insecurity, deterioration of the natural environment, and persistent and pervasive inequalities.

 The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed an unprecedented crisis, causing further disruption to SDG progress, with the world’s poorest and most vulnerable affected the most. The pandemic has quickly become the worst human and economic crisis of our lifetime, spreading to all countries, making the achievement of Goals even more challenging.” It has exposed and exacerbated existing inequalities and injustices.”

Using the latest data and estimates, this annual stocktaking report on progress across the 17 Goals shows that it is the poorest and most vulnerable – including children, older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants and refugees – who are being hit the hardest by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Women are also bearing the heaviest brunt of the pandemic’s effects.

The report also shows that climate change is still occurring much faster than anticipated. The year 2019 was the second warmest on record and the end of the warmest decade of 2010 to 2019. Meanwhile, ocean acidification is accelerating; land degradation continues; massive numbers of species are at risk of extinction; and unsustainable consumption and production patterns remain pervasive. Sustainable development is a harmonious concept between environment and development. It is about reconciling conflict with the environment in which human being exist.

The Supreme Court of India has played the role of a catalyst in safeguarding the environmental concerns by pronouncing various landmark judgements. This has led to the creation of a whole new level of jurisprudence which began with absolute liability. Now it includes concepts such as the polluter pays principle, sustainable development and the precautionary principle.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. Union of India (A.I.R 1985 S.C 652), was the first case involving the issues relating to environment and ecological balance which brought into sharp focus the conflict between development and conservation. In this case, the indiscriminate mining in the Mussoorie hills and Dehradun belt denuded the Mussoorie hills of trees and forest cover. It accelerated soil erosion resulting in landslides and blockage of underground water which fed many rivers and springs in the river valley. The court appointed an expert committee to advice the Bench on technical issues and on the basis of the report of the committee, the Court ordered the closure of number of lime stone quarries.

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, 1995 SCC (6) 363, the Supreme Court observed that “the present generation has no right to imperil the safety and well-being of the next generation or the generations to come thereafter”.  Supreme Court further observed, “Afterall, the present generation has no right to deplete all the existing forests and leave nothing for the next and future generations”. 

In Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 281, the Apex Court held: “while economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments”. 

The doctrine of Sustainable Development was implemented by the Supreme Court in the case of Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India(1996 (5) SCC 647). The Petitioners therein had filed a petition in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the pollution caused by discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the river Palar in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Read Also: Maha Kumbh: Uttarakhand HC asks Govt to increase number of Covid-19 tests

The Supreme Court pointed out that the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer.  The apex court observed, “We have no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development’ as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the Customary International Law though its salient feature have yet to be finalized by the International Law Jurists. Some of the salient principles of “Sustainable Development”, as culled-out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Nature Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays principle, Obligation to assist and cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the views that “The Precautionary Principle” and “The Polluter Pays” principle are essential features of “Sustainable Development”.

The court held that: “Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of ‘Sustainable Development’ and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.” The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (Judgement dated 12.12.1996), issued detailed directions for the sustainable use of forests and created its own monitoring and implementation system through regional and state level committees, regulating the felling, use and movement of timber across the country in the hope of preserving the nation’s forest. 

The Apex Court explained and implemented the doctrine of Sustainable Development in a number of judgments thereafter. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India (2000) the court observed that “Sustainable Development means what type or extent of development can take place, which can be sustained by nature or ecology with or without mitigation”.

In T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed, “The environments are not the State property and are national asset. It is the obligation of all to conserve the environments and for its utilization, it is necessary to have regard to the principles of sustainable development and inter-generational equity”. Supreme Court further observed, “Conservation includes preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment”.

In T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, Supreme Court observed,“Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric. Many of our principles like sustainable development, polluter-pays principle, inter-generational equity have their roots in anthropocentric principles. Anthropocentrism is always human interest focussed and non-human has only instrumental value to humans. In other words, humans take precedence and human responsibilities to non- human based benefits to humans. Ecocentrism is nature centred where humans are part of nature and non-human has intrinsic value. In other words, human interest do not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans independently of human interest. Ecocentrism is therefore life- centred, nature-centred where nature include both human and non- humans. National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2012 and centrally sponsored scheme (Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats) is centred on the principle of ecocentrism.

The Supreme Court further observed, “The principle of sustainable development and inter-generational equity too pre-supposes the higher needs of humans and lays down that exploitation of natural resources must be equitably distributed between the present and future generations. Environmental ethics behind those principles were human need and exploitation, but such principles have no role to play when we are called upon to decide the fate of an endangered species or the need to protect the same irrespective of its instrumental value”.

Hence, importance has been given both to development and environment and the quest is to maintain a fine balance between environment and economic development. The Supreme Court of India emphasized on the need to set up specialized Environment courts for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases involving environmental issues, since the right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The National Green Tribunal was set up under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). The objective of the NGT Act is to provide effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to the protection of the environment. There is a principal bench of the Tribunal in New Delhi and four regional benches in Bhopal, Kolkata, Pune and Chennai. These are ‘co-equal benches’.

NGT has been empowered to hear all the civil matters related to environment. The NGT is not bound by the procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is bound by the principles of natural justice.  In furtherance of its duties, the NGT has furthered the crusade of environment protection on basis the doctrine of Sustainable Development.

Mahatma Gandhi who led India to her freedom, was also an environmentalist. And such was his passion, vision and understanding of the environment – back in the days when nationalism overruled any global thinking -that his writings and thoughts are punch lines for almost all present-day environmental organizations and campaigns.

Being fully aware about the consequence of unwarranted industrialization on the Environment of India, he wrote “God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like a locusts.” He believed that “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed” He was also one of the first who thought on the lines of sustainable development. In 1909, he  appealed to his countrymen not be trapped by the thought of material gains. The real importance of Gandhi as an environmentalist lies not just in his vision and his understanding of the man-nature relationship, but in the fact that he patterned his personal life on these ideals and set a living example for others to follow. Throughout his life, he continued to give demonstrations on health, hygiene and sanitation.

Read Also: Operation Kamala tape: Karnataka High Court allows probe against Yediyurappa to continue

Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world”.  So, the habit of sustainable development should be one of the major concerns of every human being if mother earth has to survive to meet the needs of our coming generation. It is about time we start protecting our earth lest it may be too late tomorrow.

-The author is Advocate–On-Record