- State’s duty to protect and preserve water bodies in the State.
- It’s duty of the State’s to improve the environment and clean water bodies.
- The State’s duty to safeguards the forest and wildlife of the country.
- Article 48A not judicially enforceable.
- But it become enforceable under orbit of Right to Life under Article 21.
This Article 48A was added by the 42nd Amendment 1976 and places an obligation on the State’s to protect the environment and wildlife.
It Article 48A part of Directive Principle of State’s policy mandate the State’s shall endeavor to protect the environment.
Although the water bodies are not mentioned and express but it’s general duty of State’s to improve and preserve the environment.
The water bodies come under the orbit of the environment Conservation effort and mandate the State’s to clean and protect.
Subhash kumar v. State of Bihar 1991 SC ( Protect water bodies)
In this case Supreme Court held that right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air is included in Article 21 scope of Right to Life.
Programmes for protection of environment
Programmes for protection of environment and safeguard of forest and wild life :
- The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986
- The water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974
- The air (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1989
- Wild life (Protection) Act, 1972
- The Forest (conservation) act, 1980
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960
Judicial interpretation regarding the topic Environment protection
Sachindananda v. State of W.B (AIR 1987 SC 1109)
It is observe by the court in this case, where the problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48A.
Which enjoins that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
Ratlam Municipality (AIR 1980 SC 1622) Protect water bodies
Supreme Court while considering the validity of the order of the trial Court affirmed by the High Court directing the Ratlam Municipality to draft a plan within 6 months.
For the removal of nuisance caused by the open drains and public excretion by the nearby slum dwellers.
And it was observed that poor finance cannot be accepted plea to defy or deny the Constitutional mandate.
M.C. Mehta(II) v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471
The court directed that the Kanpur Nagar mahapalika to take appropriate steps for the prevention of pollution of water of Ganga.
Mirza Abid Beg v. U.P and others (Protect water bodies)
The supreme court observed that the state has the constitutional duty to protect water bodies within the state and restore those water bodies which have been illegal filled in.