CONSTITUTION AND ENVIROMENTAL LAW
Environmental protection has found a special mention in the Indian constitution. The preamble to the Constitution provides that our country is based on socialistic pattern of society. The basic aim of socialism is to provide a decent standard of living to all, which can be possible only in a pollution free environment. Also, in a democratic republic, people have the right to know and access information on government policies which is very important for the success of environmental policies. The starting point of environmental protection is the fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy which underline our national commitment to protect and improve the environment. The interpretation given to article 21 of the Constitution contained in the Fundamental Rights has added new dimensions to the quality of life and its relating effect on the environment. The Constitution of India as originally enacted did not contain any specific provision to deal with environmental pollution though Article 47 made an indirect reference to improvement of public health as one of the primary duties of the state. Article 51 (c) provides that the state shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one and another. Article 253 of the Constitution specifically empowers parliament to make any law for the whole or part of india for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or any decision made at any international conference. This has been held in conformity with the 1972 UN conference on Human Environment at Stockholm and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development Rio de Janeiro. The authority vested in the parliament under the provisions contained in article 253 has been exercised in enacting the air act and the environment protection act. The preamble to both these enactments specifically declare that these laws were enacted to inmplement the desicions taken at stockholm declaration 1992
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that it is almost an accepted proposition of law that the rules of customary international law which are not contrary to municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed by the Courts of Law.

Constitution 42nd Amendment Act 1976 incorporated Article 48 A into the Constitution in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy. The Amendment also inserted part 6A which enumerates fundamental duty of citizens. This shows the concern of our parlianmentarians to give priority to environmental protection by bringing it on the national agenda because the conditions existing at that time necessitated such an action.
DERICTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY.
Indian Judiciary has made use of these directives in a number of cases and these have been read as complimentary to the fundamental rights. Where ther is a right to use and enjoy the environmental bounties, citizens also have a duty to preserve such bounties to protection of environment.
T damodar Rao v. S. O Muncipal Corporation Hyderabad
The court pointed out that in view of articles 48A and 51A(g) , it is clear that protection of environment is not the duty of citizens but also the obligation of the state and all other state organs including courts.
Kinkri Devi v. State
The HP high court reiterated that in articles 48A and 51A g there is both a constitutional pointer to the state and a constitutional duty of citizens not only to protect but also improve the environment and failure to abide by the pointer is nothing short of a betrayal of the fundamental law which thw state and the citizens are bound to uohold.
The word “protect” and “improve” which occur in both provisions under discussion appear to contemplate a formative state action to improve the quality of the environment and not just to preserve the environment in its degraded form. The provisions leave ample scope for the judiciary to intervene and require public authorties to improve environmental quality.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIS A VIS ENVIRONMENT A. The right to a wholesome environment.
It is the interpretation of article 21 which the courts have extended further so as to include the right to wholesome environment. Environmental pollution which spoils the atmosphere and thereby affects the life and health of a person has been guarded as the mounting violation of Article 21.

T damodar Rao v. S. O Muncipal Corporation Hyderabad
The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution spoliation should also be regarded as violation of article 21. The AP high court also explained that the enviromenatl law has succeded in unshackling mas right to life and personal liberty from the crutches of the common law theory of individual ownership.

Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India
The Supeme Court put it beyond doubt that right to live in a heathly environment is a fundamental right under artcle 21 and has to be read with article 48A and 51A(g) therby putting obligation on the state as well as citizens to portect and improve it.

Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra, dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The entertained complains alleging that the operation of lime stone quarries in the Mussorie Dehradun region resulted in degradation of the environment affecting the frigid ecosystems in the area. The Supreme Court was moved under article 32 and ordered the closure of some of the quarries on the ground that these were upsetting the ecological balance.

Ganga Pollution tanneries case
“ we are conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people.”
M. C Mehta v Union of India
The Court was conscious that environmental changes are inevitable consequences of industrial development in our country, but at the same time the quality of environment cannot be permitted to be damaged by polluting the air, water and land to such an extent that it becomes a health hazard. The Court retreated that every citizen has right to fresh air and live in a pollution free environment.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
By virtue of Constitutional provisions and statutory provisions, the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. The two basic principles of sustainable development can derive from various provisions including the right to life.

B. Right to livelihood
Banwasi Seva Ashram v State of Uttar Pradesh
The case arose out of a PIL petition on behalf of local people who raise their voice against reservation of forest land by the state. The tribal forest dwellers were using the forest as their habitat and means of livelihood. It was contended that state action which contemplated eviction of the forest dwellers violated the Fundamental right to life of the local people guaranteed by Article 21. The Supreme Court gave directions for safeguarding and protecting the interest of the backward peoples who were being ousted from the forest land. The Court permitted the acquisition of land only after the corporation agreed to provide certain facilities to the ousted forest dwellers.

Whether the right to livelihood could be asserted to prevent environmentally harmful projects which tend to uproot the local people and thus deprives them of their livelihood. It is submitted that the entire matter including the installation of such projects, their impact on the life pf the people vis a vis their rehabilitation will have to be taken into account failing which Article 21 may come into operation. C. Right to know
S. P Gupta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court recognised the right to know to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression. Therefore, disclosures of information in regard to the functioning of the Government must be the rule and secrecy is an exception justified only when the strictest requirement of public interest so demands.
Bombay Environmental Action Group v. Pune Cantonment
The court held that peoples participation in the movement for the protection of the environment cannot be exercised. It is wrong to think that by trying to protect the environment, their posing various development projects. One who is prepared to pay the requisite fees and is asking for inspection or copies of site plan bonafied is entitled to it. The inspection was contemplated only to decide the question as to whether the relevant provisions of law are complied with or not or the construction of the building is likely to create any environment problems.

D. Fredom of trade and environment
Whether a person, agency or industry has right to carry on business or trade in a manner which is causing injury to the public and posing health hazards to the society at large.

Abilash textiles v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation
It was acknowledged that after 19(1)(g) confers a right upon every citizen to carry on trade and business however, is rightly subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed in the interests of general public as provided in 19(1)(g). Therefore, no one has the right carry on business so as to cause nuisance to society.