Author: Srishti Gupta

INTRODUCTION 

The capital state, Delhi, has changed over the years from becoming a source of national pride for India to being featured as one of the most polluted cities across the globe. By the dawn of winter, the smog that covers the entire city makes it impossible for citizens to conduct normal activities. The result is that the Air Quality Index touches “severe” levels, which give rise to multiple health issues. 

The actual reading for the concentration beyond the permissible limit for the concentration of PM2.5 and PM10 is with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). An aspect of great significance is the denial of the basic legal right of the citizens of Delhi to live in a healthy environment.

Air quality issues do not relate only to the environment and medicine but also to human dignity, equality, education, and even the right to life. The current scenario of air quality in Delhi, with the Air Quality Index (AQI), has to be considered in legal and constitutional aspects too. 

CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY: RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR

The Indian Constitution, through Article 21, protects the following: “No person shall be denied life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Declared by the apex court to cover, inter alia, “the right to live in a pollution-free environment.” Insofar as the latter is concerned, it has been declared in the case of Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, it has: “The right to life includes within it the right to breathe in clean air and drink clean water.” In Virender Gaur v State of Haryana, this view has been supported: “Protection of the environment has become essential for meaningful enjoyment of this right.” 

When the Delhiites are made to inhale fumes with toxic substances each day, it is an assault on their health, safety, and dignity. The subject condition cannot be reconciled with the constitutional promise of a life with dignity. Therefore, Delhi’s AQI crisis is in direct violation of Article 21.

AIR POLLUTION: THE UNAVOIDABLE SOCIAL REPURCUSSIONS 

The effect of air pollution in Delhi is not equal for all citizens. Whereas the government recognises air as a common natural resource, everyday experience knows only disparate lungs. Adversities of climate change not only limit themselves to health risk, but also social inequalities. Making an intrigue analysis, it is observed that while a corporate employee has access to air purifiers and masks, the employees engaged in unorganized sector remain devoid of any health security measures. Pollution, in this manner, functions not only as an environmental crisis but also as a silent social discriminator, with access to protection based on social location and not rights.

The equality of treatment is guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, but pollution results in uneven suffering. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v UoI, it was held by the Supreme Court that “a citizen has a right to health and to have them protected from inhumane working conditions, as an essential aspect of Article 21.” When outside workers are forced to work in unhealthy air without protective measures, it is indirectly enabled by the State to result in class suffering. This is not random suffering; it is structural suffering.

Air and other types of pollution have especially affected poor children. While richer children start with online education in instances of atmospheric emergencies, poor children either stop education altogether or go to schools with poor air quality. Justice K.T. Thomas, in the case of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka, held, and the Supreme Court reiterated, that education, as a result, trickles down from the right to life and dignity.

The judiciary has consistently established the fact that dignity is inherent in, and thus inextricably linked with, life itself. In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, it was asserted, “The right to life thus encompasses the right to live with dignity and all its concomitants.” Breathing poisonous air on a regular basis does not go hand in hand with human dignity. However, this is now the reality of the poor in cities in India.

JUDICIAL RESPONSE 

Judicial intervention has been a crucial factor in environmental concerns. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. UoI, Oleum Gas Leak case, the Indian Supreme Court held that “strict liability” shall be applied for dangerous businesses, which means that if there is risk, the risk giver shall bear the risk. It is also said that “one who comes armed with dangerous goods comes as a trespasser.” Similarly, in vehicular pollution cases, the Court ordered the conversion of Delhi’s public transport to CNG.

In the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v UoI, the Court started following the precautionary principle and the ‘polluter pays principle’ in India. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath, the Court followed the public trust doctrine and asserted that natural resources belong to the government in trust for the public. In the case of Arjun Gopal vs UoI, the Court regulated the use of firecrackers in the interest of children’s health and air quality.

Such determinations unequivocally demonstrate that air pollution constitutes a question of constitutional rights and in no way involves policy considerations in general.

THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS & COMPLIANCES 

Taking a close look at India’s stance at the global level, India has always been a step forward in advocating the need to curb climate change by being a signatory to multiple international conventions and treaties. Under the Stockholm Declaration, 1972, the agreement stressed the right to a healthy and safe environment. The Rio Declaration, 1992, introduced the principles of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘precautionary principles.’ Finally, the Paris Agreement of 2015 binds India to reduce its emissions and further ensure sustainable development. The Indian courts have invoked these instruments while interpreting the domestic environmental law in the landmark judgments of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum and N.D. Jayal v. UoI.

The Supreme Court declared that development should be ‘sustainable and environmentally balanced.’ It is not development but a sure sign of ruin when there is an unrestrained pursuit of economic development through environmental degradation. The development philosophy, which only promotes ‘unbridled development’ without environmental accountability, has brought about environmental degradation in Delhi. Several days of pollution in the capital city of Delhi prove the failure of the country to adhere to its promise to the international community.

CONCLUSION 

The air quality disaster in Delhi is not merely an environmental disaster. For that matter, this is a disaster in terms of our Constitution. The judicial pronouncements, legislative provisions, and international obligations are still wide apart. The right to fresh air is not a privilege of the well-connected people; on the contrary, every person must possess this right.So long as governing is a seasonal affair in matters of pollution control, the constitutional guarantee of life with dignity, under Article 21, will never attain completion. Environmental protection is not an act of charity; it is an aspect of constitutional justice.