Environmental Constitutionalism in India: Analysing Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action

The present case involves a catastrophic effect on the environment due to the discharge of untreated toxic and chemical effluents in nearby land and water bodies, resulting in soil infertility, groundwater contamination, and serious health hazards for residents from the chemical industries in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, which resulted in health-related problems to several individuals. The process of discharging chemical waste may have lasted several days, but the impact was deeply ingrained in people's minds. It marked the transformation in the sphere of Environmental Jurisprudence. The case was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in the form of Public Interest Litigation for the enforcement of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it also raises the important contention regarding the operation of hazardous industries in densely populated areas and their irresponsibility in treating the toxic and industrial waste. The bone of contention in the present case was the stricter enforcement of environmental liabilities against industries that pollute the environment by discharging waste into water bodies. The court expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, affirming that the right to life includes the right to live in a safe and pollution-free environment. The court also affirmed the Doctrine of Absolute Liability, which holds that if industries or enterprises engage in inherently hazardous activities, they must be held liable without exception, as established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This judgment not only strengthened Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India but also provided a forum for the evolution of principles such as the Polluter Pays. This decision also boosted the concept of corporate accountability and the protection of environmental rights in India.