This article elucidates the necessity of the Environmental laws in protecting the Ecosystem and Preserving the nature as well. Firstly, it explains the importance of the Constitutional provisions in protecting the basic rights and responsibilities of the mankind. Secondly, it briefly pinpoints the concepts of Sustainable Development along with major case laws. Finally, it concludes with the major decisions and suggestions of the Courts in India to preserve and conserve the natural Ecosystem.

Introduction:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live in a healthy environment. The courts often had to decide on the conflicts of rights between citizens. For instance, the freedom of speech and expression, the right to carry on a business, trade or occupation, the freedom of religion, and above all, the right to equality of the areas, where these conflicts arise in contra- distinction to the right to a healthy environment under Article 21. The freedom of inter-state commerce was also adverted to. There were conflicts between Central legislation and state legislation. The constitutional mandate under the Directive principles of State Policy (Part IV) and the fundamental duties (Part IV-A) relating to protect and improve the environment has a substantial role to play in resolving and reconciling this conflicts.

The need for protection of the environment throws up innumerable challenges for a developing Nation. administrative and legislative strategies to bring about how many between environment values and developmental needs are imperative. These strategies are to be formulated within the prevailing socio economic conditions to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the present and future generations. Courts have a crucial role to play in determining the scope of the powers and functions of Administrative agencies at this level and in striking a balance between the Environment and Development.

Constitutional Rights And Duties to Preserve the Environment:

Right to live with human dignity

In the landmark decision in Menaka Gandhi v Union of India[1], that the right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 can be abridged only by a just fair and reasonable procedure established by law, where the concepts of right to life, personal liberty and procedure established by law contained in Article 21 of the constitution after a period of inertia found new meanings through constitutional interpretations culminating in the landmark decisions. The right to life is not confined to a mere animal existence, but extends to the right to live with basic human dignity.

In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangarsh Samati v State of Uttar Pradesh[2], Sabyasachi Mukherjee, CJ., observed:
Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India[3]. In Subhash Kumar v State of Biher,K N Singh [4],J observed in a more vivid manner.' right to live... includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for powerful enjoyment of life. Right to life was expanded in consumer education and research centre v Union of India[5] to the right to social security, human conditions of work and leisure of workmen.

Prior decisions on wider meaning given to right to Life, and on the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles were quoted to emphasize the duties of the state or an industry, private or public, to promote health of Workmen as the basic essential to live with health and happiness. According to the apex court, fundamental right to health and medical care continuous even after retirement.

In Kamal Nagar Welfare Association v Government of Andhra Pradesh[6], the Andhra Pradesh high court held at as part of a beautification of an enclosed area, it is just an proper if the encroachers, who are poor, aur rehabilitated in a healthier and more congenial habitat with better civic amenities. In Narmada bachao andolan vs Union of India[7] , the apex court held that rehabilitation of oustees to a new location with better facilities than those they had enjoyed in their original hamlets would not result in the violation of their fundamental right under Article 21.

The Concept of Sustainable Development And its Important Case Laws:

The concept of Sustainable Development tools to be a solution to many a dilemma. Under the constitutional scheme, the individual as well as the society have the right to development. The apex court justified several actions on the ground of sustainable development in the interests of the public at large.

For Instance, in N.D.Jayal v Union of India [8], the supreme court held sustainable development to be a fundamental right in order to justify construction of a dam as a symbol of wholesome development. It is the duty of the court to Mould or creatively interpret the legislation by liberally interpreting the statue with the pragmatic view , agreeable to justice and reason, avoiding confusion, absurdity, injustice, irrationality and mischievous consequences[9].

Right to a Healthy Environment: Universal Acceptance:

The right to a healthy environment got entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Courts in a large measure relied on this right in addressing a variety of aspects protection and improvement of environment.

• In Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court held that the rights of an ivory dealer are subject to the paramount rights of other people to have a healthy and balanced ecology. It also held that killing elephants for procuring ivory should be stopped for a balanced environment.
   
• The Allahabad High Court observed in S. K. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh that the right to water is a part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. The use of agricultural lands for aquaculture causes pollution of underground water in neighboring properties.
   
• In M. P. Rambabu v. Divisional Forest Officer, the Suresh High Court observed that under Article 21, the right to live a decent life includes a good environment, and ecology must be held to have primacy over the statutory right to hold and enjoy property.
   
• In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu, the apex court accepted the proposition that Article 21 generates the right to a healthy and hygienic environment, placing environmental concerns and human rights on the same pedestal.
   
• In Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, the court held that preservation of material resources of the community, such as forests, tanks, ponds, and hillocks, is necessary to maintain ecological balance so that people can enjoy a quality of life, which is the essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21.
   
• In M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, it was made clear that any disturbance of the basic environmental elements, namely air, water, and soil, which are necessary for life, would be hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
   
• Murali S. Deora v. Union of India was a case on the impact of smoking. The apex court held that, being injurious to the health of both smokers and non-smokers, smoking affects the rights of passive smokers and hence must be prohibited in public places.
   
• The right to have clean water includes the right to have it supplied in sufficient quantities. In the same vein, it can be asserted that it is a part of the right to life.
   
• The right to a healthy environment is the product of judicial interpretation, expanding the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution imposed a duty on the state and citizens to protect and improve the environment by adding Article 48A to the Directive Principles and Article 51A(g) as a fundamental duty. These provisions have served as the foundation for developing environmental jurisprudence in the country.
   
• In T. Dhamodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to Articles 51A(g) and 48A and prevented the conversion of an open space into a residential complex. The court noted that the protection of the environment is both a duty of citizens and an obligation of the state.
   
• In Mohd Hazi Rafeeq v. State of Uttaranchal, the Uttaranchal High Court referred to Articles 48A and 51A(g) to emphasize the duty of the state to preserve and protect forests, even at the cost of the business interests of the petitioner.
   
• In L. K. Koolwal v. State, the Rajasthan High Court, while directing the municipal authorities of Jaipur to keep the city clean, emphasized the fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the environment.
• According to the court, this provision gives citizens the right to move the court to ensure that the state performs its duties faithfully and strives to protect and improve the natural environment.

The right to life and the habitat and the corresponding duty to protect them, our Universal but limited, within the domain of the human species. Emphasizing the duty of every citizen under Article 51A, the court held that the individual who seeks to protect animals and their habitat is not exercising his right, but is acting in furtherance of his duties.

If protection and improvement of the environment is a constitutional duty of every citizen, there is no ground to deny standing to such an organisation that files the public interest litigation relating to environment. Theoretically, it would be the duty of the state and the citizens to maintain hygienic environment, though the state has a particular duty to forge its policies to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Environment protection has now become a matter of Grave concern for human existence.

Therefore the central government, state governments and the local bodies have an imperative duty to ensure and safeguard the environment in a proper manner as well as choose adequate measures to promote ,protect and improve the natural and man made Environment. Courts laid stress on the duties of the state and citizens combined under Arts 48-A,47 and 51-A(g) of the constitution of India. Security of all living creatures is undoubtedly part of the duty to protect and improve the natural environment. Compassion to living creatures and development of Humanism or specific fundamental duties incorporated into the constitution by the 42nd amendment.

Conclusion & Suggestions:
The Court's eco-centric approach that every species has a right to life and security symbolises another significant addition to the array of articles under article 21 of the constitution of India. The court held that the damage to the environment is damage to the country's assets as a whole. Ecology knows no boundaries. It can have impact on the climate. and parameters for valuation of the damage have to be evolved all the likely impact of activities on future generations.

The preservation of Eco-system, Biodiversity and Environment is a national issue to be dealt with at National level. The problem is not areas specific or state specific. Public trust Doctrine has to be used to protect rights of the present and future generations. Ecology belongs to all, being a gift of nature for the entire nation.

The Courts in India gradually enlarged and applied the concept of quality of life and living to various issues affecting the Environment. As Justice Douglas stated, inanimate objects may also be considered as invisible parties in Environmental litigation. The courts have adopted an eco-centric approach wherein every species is found to have a right to life and security expanding the rights guaranteed under Article 21 the constitution of India. The right to Environment has both negative as well as positive connotation. It is said that the legislature and executive and not the courts , offer greater protection for the environment.

The constitution imposes on all institutions – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary- as well as the citizens, the responsibilities of protecting and improving the environment. There are arguments against and in favour of incorporating the specific right to environment into the constitution. The decisions of courts have widened the scope of the right to life by reading into it ,the right to a clean environment.

They have also lay down that protection and improvement of the environment is a mandatory to every institution public or private and individual to be followed in hours pairs of their activities. The Courts in India over the needs for development. Consequently ,they interpret the provisions of the Constitution of India in conformity with the Concept of Sustainable Development.

Bibliography
Articles & Books Referred:

• Bakshi, PM, The Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, (1986).
• Bothe, Michael (ed), Trends in Environmental Policy and Law, IUCN, (1990).
• British Institute of International Environmental Law, Selected Documents on International Environmental Law (1917).
• Clark and Lindsay on Torts, Sweet and Maxwell, London, (1982).
• Leelakrishnan, P. et al (eds), Law and Environment, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, (1992).
• Shastri, Satish C., Environmental Law, Eastern, Lucknow, (2004).
• Kothari, Ashish, 'Environment Notification is Raising a Storm of Protest', Indian Express, 10 May 1992.
• Leelakrishnan P, 'Environmental Impact Assessment: Legal Dimensions', 34 JILI 540.

Websites Referred:

• www.climate.laws.org/
• www.sciencedirect.com/
• www.icao.int/
• www.asil.org/

End Notes:

1. AIR 1978 SC 597
2. AIR 1990 SC 2060
3. The fundamental duty of a citizen to protect the Environment.
4. AIR 1991 SC 420 P.424
5. AIR 1995 SC 922 P.940
6. AIR 2000 AP132
7. AIR 2000 SC 3751 PP.3787,3804
8. AIR 2004 SC 867 (Supp)
9. State of M.P v Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 PP.682-684
10. AIR 1997 Del 267, p.293
11. AIR 1996 SC 1051
12. AIR 2003 AP 256, P.289
13. AIR 1999 SC 812, P.825
14. (2001)6 SCC 496, P.501
15. AIR 2000 SC 1997, PP.2000,2003
16. AIR 2002 SC 40
17. Shajimon Joseph v State of Kerala, AIR 2007 Ker 547.
    The Kerala High Court held that under Section 37 of (NOC), the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1988, the State has a duty to supply safe drinking water to citizens.
18. AIR 1987 AP 171
19. AIR 2006 Uchal 18, pp.21,22
20. AIR 1988 Raj 2
21. Clause (j) of Article 51-A was also pointed out to show that the state should strive towards collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to the higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

Written By: A.Jonah Elisa Shiny