In Hinch Lal Tiwari v.

Kamla Devi1, the Supreme Court declared that material resources of the
community, like, forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks, mountains etc., are nature's bounty. It was recognized
that they maintain delicate ecological balance and need to be protected for a proper and healthy
environment, for enabling the citizens to enjoy the quality of life, which is guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution.

In Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India2, the Delhi High court held that rights
of an ivory dealer are subject to the paramount rights of other people to have healthy and balanced
ecology. The Court observed that “The destruction or depletion of other form of life would create
ecological imbalances endangering human life. No one can be given privilege to endanger human life, as
that would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Basically, it is extremely essential for the survival of
man to co-exist with nature and to preserve and protect wild life. It also held that killing of elephants for
procuring ivory should be stopped for a balanced environment.”

In MP Rambabu v. Divisional Forest Officer 3, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that under
article 21 of the Constitution the right to live a decent life, a good environment and maintenance of
ecology must be held to have primacy over the statutory right to hold and enjoy the property. Pollution
is a consequence of abusing the environment and natural resources by human beings.

Explaining the concept of right to life in Article 21 the Court said in KM Chinnappa v. Union of India4:
“Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within
its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air,
water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause
environmental pollution.”

The Supreme Court in Virender Gaur and Ors. v. State of Haryana Ors.5, has held as follows: "The word
'environment' is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit "hygienic atmosphere and ecological
balance." Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution etc. should be regarded as amounting to
violation of Article 21.

1
2001 (6) SCC 496
2
AIR 1997 Del 267, p. 293
3
AIR 2003 AP 256,p.289
4
AIR 2003 SC 724, 731
5
(1995) 2 SCC 577
In Kinkri Devi and Anr. V. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors6 the High Court of Himachal Pradesh take
a serious note of the indiscriminate grant of mining leases and the unchecked and unscientific
exploitation of the mines by the lessees, especially in the hilly tracts and regions of the Himalayas. The
Court warned that if appropriate steps were not taken by the administrative authorities to prevent this
it might result in evil consequences having a far-reaching and lasting impact on the natural wealth and
resources of the country and the local population, human as well as cattle. If the urgent steps were not
taken, there would be a violation of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.

RESP

Article 19(1)(g) in Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association and Ors. v The Commissioner of Police
and Ors7 . According to the Calcutta High Court it must be held that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution
or which takes away that communities' safety, health and peace.

6
AIR 1988 HP 4
7
7 AIR 1998 Ca l121