IMPORTANT POINT
Right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life .

Headnote:(i) Environmental Law-Healthy environment and sustainable development-Are fundamental human right implicit in the right to life . (Paras 5 to 10)
(ii) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974-Sections 2(e), 2(k), 17, 18 and 28-Environment Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(b), 3(2) and 5-Prohibition to establish polluting industries in notified area-Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar in Andhra Pradesh-Notification Prohibiting establishment of industries within 10 K.M. of reservoirs -7th respondent s attempt to establish industry for manufacture of Vanaspati Hydegenerated vegetable oils for industrial purposes -Industry falls in red category-Government granting exemption-Exemption arbitrary and contrary to public interest in violation of right to cleaner water under Article 21 of Constitution-Scientific reports of expert body against Industry-Pollution Control Board rightly refused to grant No Objection Certificate-Plea of promissory estoppel raised by appellant untenable-Appellate Authority u/s 28 of Water Act not justified in directing Pollution Control Board to issue NOC to appellant-Order of the Pollution Control Board u/s 25 of Water Act refusing permission to establish industry sustained. (Paras 52 to 64)

JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-On an earlier occasion, in this very case, this Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board (I) v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu1, (dated 27.1.1999) referred to the precautionary principle and the new rule of burden of proof in the matter of environmental pollution. This Court in that judgment emphasised the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of pollution to environment. The said approach of this Court was based upon contemporary trend in the adjudication of environmental matters in various countries and was not intended to restrict the powers of this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard environment from pollution.

2. Our efforts to get at the best scientific evidence on the issues involved in the case, have yielded satisfactory results in the sense that we have today greater confidence about the correctness of our conclusions and further that this is a fit case for affirming the orders of the appellant (Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board) not to grant consent to the seventh respondent (M/s. Surana Oils & Derivatives (India) Ltd.) under the statute for establishing its industry. We are now more sure that, on facts, this is a pre-eminently fit case which requires grant of an injunction to prevent irreversible pollution to the drinking water reservoirs of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar catering to the needs of over 50 lakhs people, in Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

3. Drinking water is of primary importance in any country. In fact, India is a party to the Resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference in 1977 as under :

"All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs."

Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.

4. Adverting to the above right declared in the aforesaid Resolution, in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India2, Kirpal J. observed :

"Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India ........"

There is therefore need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them.

Competing human rights to healthy environment and sustainable development :

5. There is building up, in various countries, a concept that right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life .

6. Our Supreme Court was one of the first Courts to develop the concept of right to healthy environment as part of the right to life under Article 21 of our Constitution. [See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India3. This principle has now been adopted in various countries today.

7. In today s emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as "third generation" rights. The "first generation" rights are generally political rights such as those found in the International Covention on Civil & Political Rights while "second generation" rights are social and economic rights as found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Right to Healthy Environment". (See Vol. 25) 2000 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law by John Lee, p.283, at pp. 293-294 fn.29).

8. The right to sustainable development has been declared by the UN General Assembly to be an inalienable human right (Declaration on the Right to Development) (1986). The 1992 Rio Conference declared that Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. Human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. (Principle 1). In order to achieve "sustainable development, environmental protec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1940

IMPORTANT POINTRight to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life .

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life .