SC pulls up Centre: Every citizen has right to environment free of pollution

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated25/10/2024

The Supreme Court Wednesday said that time has come to remind governments that citizens have a fundamental right under Article 21 to live in a pollution-free environment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that citizens have a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to live in a pollution-free environment. This reminder came as the Court reviewed a case on stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana, which contributes significantly to air pollution in the Delhi-NCR region.
A bench of Justices A.S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih stated that environmental violations also represent violations of fundamental rights.

The Court criticized the government’s inaction in implementing the amended Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, which deals with penalties for violating environmental laws.
The original unamended Section 15 treated violations as penal offenses, but the amended version focuses on financial penalties for violations. However, the amended provision has been rendered ineffective due to the Centre's failure to create the necessary enforcement machinery, such as appointing adjudicating officers or framing supporting rules.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the government's delay in appointing officers to enforce the amended law, making it impossible for authorities to impose penalties under Section 15. As a result, violators of environmental laws are going unpunished. The Court stated that without the necessary machinery, the amended law has become "toothless."

The Centre’s counsel assured the Court that the necessary enforcement machinery would be in place within two weeks. The Court has recorded this assurance.

The Supreme Court also reprimanded the state governments of Punjab and Haryana for failing to take effective action against stubble burning, despite directions from the Committee for Air Quality Management.
Both states were found to have taken selective actions rather than consistent enforcement. While the Haryana Chief Secretary claimed a reduction in stubble burning cases, the Court found these actions insufficient and selective.