Delhi’s skies have, yet again, turned into a toxic grey blanket. Schools are shutting, flights are disrupted, and doctors are reporting a surge in respiratory emergencies. This annual ritual is more than a seasonal inconvenience; it’s a stark, suffocating symbol of a systemic failure. For decades, India has relied on judicial innovation and policy patchwork to combat environmental degradation. But as pollution becomes a year-round, nationwide crisis, this approach is proving tragically inadequate. The moment has arrived for India to take a historic constitutional step: explicitly recognizing the fundamental right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
The Judicial Bridge Is Strained
The Supreme Court has been heroic in its efforts. By expanding Article 21’s “right to life” to include the right to clean air and water, it built a bridge where the Constitution’s framers left a gap. Landmark judgments have given us vital principles: the Polluter Pays doctrine, the Precautionary Principle, and the Public Trust Doctrine. Yet, this is a bridge under immense strain. Enforcing these judicially-crafted rights remains cumbersome, reactive, and dependent on persistent litigation. It turns citizens into perpetual petitioners, fighting for the most basic human need—healthy survival. A right that must be repeatedly argued and reinterpreted in court lacks the immediate, self-executing power of a fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Why an Explicit Right Matters
Inclusion in Part III is not a mere symbolic act. It is a transformative legal tool.
1. Clarity and Direct Enforcement: It would provide an unambiguous, standalone basis for citizens to challenge the state and polluters directly. The burden of proof would shift more decisively towards those harming the environment.
2. Strengthens State Accountability: While Article 48A (Directive Principle) guides the state, it is not legally enforceable. A fundamental right would impose a direct, justiciable duty on the government to act as the primary guardian of the environment. Inaction in the face of Delhi’s smog would become a clearer, more direct violation of constitutional mandate.
3. Elevates Environmental Governance: It would force a fundamental re-evaluation of development projects, industrial clearances, and urban planning through the lens of a non-negotiable right. Economic “ease of doing business” could no longer trump the constitutional right to breathe.
4. Aligns with Global and Moral Imperatives: Over 150 countries recognize this right in their legal frameworks. As the world’s most populous nation and a climate-vulnerable hotspot, India’s leadership is crucial. Domestically, it would affirm that the right to life, in the 21st century, is meaningless without a life-sustaining environment.
Addressing the Counter-Arguments
Skeptics argue that we already have enough laws and that a new right would create litigation chaos. This is a profound misreading of both the crisis and the law. Our existing laws are often weakened by poor implementation, conflicting mandates, and institutional silos. A fundamental right would act as an overarching constitutional compass, guiding and harmonizing all environmental legislation and policy.
The fear of excessive litigation is outweighed by the reality of excessive morbidity. A right is not a veto on development but a mandate for sustainable development. It would not stop industrialization; it would mandate cleaner industries. It would not halt infrastructure but demand green infrastructure.
The Path Forward
Parliament must initiate a constitutional amendment. The drafting must be precise, embedding not just the right but also the principles of intergenerational equity, climate justice, and the duty of care. Simultaneously, we must strengthen our regulatory institutions—like the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM)—with greater autonomy, scientific heft, and enforcement power.
Conclusion
The air of Delhi is a warning we can no longer ignore. We have patched, pleaded, and litigated our way through this crisis for too long. The judiciary has done its part, valiantly reading the writing on the smog-filled wall. Now, it is time for the legislature to act. By engraving the right to a healthy environment into our Constitution, we would do more than change a legal text. We would affirm a new social contract—one where India’s growth is measured not only by its GDP but by the breathability of its air and the vitality of its natural wealth. It is the most profound gift we can give to our children: the constitutional right to a future where they can breathe free.










































