Evolving Interpretations of Article 21 in Climate-Induced Health Crisis: Legal Remedies for Urban Pollution Victims

Abstract

The Indian judiciary has steadily transformed the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty — to include environmental protection and health safeguards. Landmark judgments, from Subhash Kumar to the recent MK Ranjitsinh (Great Indian Bustard case), affirm that urban pollution and climate change are not just ecological concerns but constitutional violations. Urban residents confront rising mortality and morbidity from air pollution, heatwaves, and related illnesses. This paper traces the doctrinal expansion of Article 21, highlighting how courts provide remedies through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), compensation mechanisms, and National Green Tribunal (NGT) interventions. From M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to the 2024 M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India judgment, the jurisprudence reveals a progressive recognition of the right against climate harm. The study concludes that with growing climate threats, robust legal remedies — including stronger statutory frameworks, integrated health policies, and community participation in litigation — are essential to achieve environmental justice and public health equity.

Keywords

Article 21, Climate Change, Urban Health, Urban Pollution, Health Crisis, Environmental Rights, National Green Tribunal, Legal Remedies, Climate Justice, Right to Health

Introduction

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Initially framed as a safeguard against arbitrary state action, this simple phrase has been judicially expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, to protect the very conditions necessary for a dignified life — including clean air, safe water, and now a climate-stable environment.

Urban India exemplifies this evolution, with cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Bangalore battling rising pollution from traffic, industry, and poor planning. Since the 1980s, the Supreme Court has recognized environmental health as a core part of the right to life.Studies reveal that air pollution alone causes more than 1.6 million premature deaths annually in India, disproportionately affecting children, the elderly, and the urban poor. Climate change, superimposed on this crisis, accelerates health risks through heatwaves, vector-borne diseases, and water stress. 

Pollution’s health toll is unequal, with the urban poor, children, elderly, and outdoor workers most at risk—turning environmental degradation into both a public health and human rights crisis.The Court has repeatedly emphasized that unchecked pollution and climate degradation amount to “slow poisoning,” stripping life of dignity. Court judgments in cases such as Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), where the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes enjoyment of pollution-free water and air, laid the foundation for environmental rights under Article 21. With International principles like sustainable development and precaution applied domestically (as in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996), India steadily built am environmental rights jurisprudence. More recently, in MK Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Court recognized freedom from harmful climate effects as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21. This is a turning point: it reframes pollution and climate emergencies not only as policy failures but as rights violations.  Article 21 has become a vital shield for urban pollution victims, but weak enforcement and systemic gaps demand stronger remedies and better access to justice in a changing climate.

Research Methodology

• Approach: Doctrinal, using qualitative interpretive analysis of constitutional provisions, Supreme Court and NGT judgments, and statutory frameworks.
• Primary sources: Constitutional provisions- notably Article 21, Supreme Court judgments, statutes like the Air Act (1981), National Green Tribunal Act (2010), and Environment (Protection) Act (1986).
• Secondary sources: Scholarly articles (Divian, Rosencranz, Badrinarayana), treatises, and relevant reports by institutions such as WHO, IPCC, Comparative literature on global climate-health jurisprudence, and Indian think tanks.

Literature Review

Indian environmental jurisprudence has redefined Article 21, expanding the right to life into a right to health, dignity, and a safe environment. Landmark rulings and scholarship position India’s judiciary as a global leader in eco-constitutionalism. Yet, enforcement gaps persist, leaving vulnerable communities at risk and highlighting the urgent need for inclusive remedies and stronger policy reforms.

• Early milestones of Article 21: Rosencranz (1991) was among the first to document the post-Emergency phase of judicial activism, where the Supreme Court began reading environmental protections into Article 21. This marked a departure from its earlier narrow interpretation of rights. The judiciary recognized that the “right to life” cannot be reduced to bare physical survival; instead, it must guarantee a life of dignity intertwined with a safe and healthy environment. These early interventions created the foundation for later constitutional innovations in environmental governance, positioning Indian courts as central players in shaping ecological rights.
• Pollution and health: The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), examined by Divan (2022), illustrates how the judiciary moved from rhetoric to concrete intervention. Here, the Supreme Court explicitly linked unchecked air pollution with respiratory disease and other serious health impacts. By doing so, it expanded Article 21 into a tool for countering contemporary environmental health risks, making pollution control not just a regulatory matter but also a constitutional imperative. This reasoning enabled courts to hold public authorities accountable for environmental degradation that harmed community health, broadening the citizen’s entitlement under fundamental rights.
• Climate-health connections: While early jurisprudence focused on industrial pollution and health, later scholarship widened the lens to include the health effects of climate change. Rocque et al. (2021) highlighted rising health burdens, ranging from heat‑related illnesses to the spread of vector-borne diseases and higher mortality linked with extreme weather events. Their findings underscore the immediacy of climate-health connections, making it clear that constitutional guarantees to life and health cannot be fulfilled without addressing climate vulnerability. For India, where marginalized groups are often first and worst hit, this linkage provides an ethical and legal grounding for treating climate resilience as part of Article 21’s ambit.
• Judicial foresight and constitutional challenges of climate change: Badrinarayana (2009) anticipated that courts would increasingly frame climate change not only as an environmental concern but as a constitutional challenge under Article 21. Drawing from the trajectory of judicial activism in the 1980s and 1990s, he argued that the judiciary’s rights‑based approach would inevitably extend to new threats like global warming. This scholarly foresight foreshadowed later developments where courts have explicitly treated climate harms as violations of fundamental rights.
• Judicial recognition of climate rights: The 2024 Supreme Court ruling in M.K. Ranjitsinh, recognizing the right to be free from adverse climate effects, spurred debate. Post-Bustard ruling, 2025 analyses in Health and Human Rights Journal hailed judicial recognition of climate protection as essential to equality and life rights.

However, critiques like Upadhyay (2023) in Journal of Environmental Law, underscore shortcomings in enforcement: despite compensation doctrines like absolute liability (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987), urban victims often face delayed or inaccessible remedies.

Article 21 has emerged as the cornerstone of India’s environmental and climate jurisprudence, evolving the right to life into a right to clean air, health, and protection from climate risks. Landmark rulings, including the 2024 Ranjitsinh case, affirm this vision, but weak enforcement and delayed remedies continue to leave vulnerable groups exposed. Real impact requires timely, inclusive, and robust enforcement mechanisms.

Urban Pollution: Data, Trends, and Human Impact

Urban pollution is a critical challenge, threatening health, livelihoods, and even cultural heritage in cities like Delhi. Beyond alarming data on toxic air, it is a human crisis—disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities who bear the greatest risks and inequities.

• Latest Data and Trends

India is the world’s second most polluted country, with 67% of its people exposed to unsafe PM2.5 levels. In Delhi, toxic air far above WHO limits shortens life expectancy and causes thousands of premature deaths each year.

• Economic and Social Consequences

The economic burden of urban pollution is immense—Delhi alone loses $36.8bn annually to pollution-related mortality and lost productivity. Iconic structures such as the Taj Mahal are suffering material damage from industrial emissions and acid rain.

• Health Disparities and Environmental Justice

Pollution impacts are deeply inequitable. Lower-income and marginalized groups bear the brunt, with pollution-exposed areas correlating to informal settlements and vulnerable occupations. Children, elderly people, and outdoor workers face the greatest risks.

Evolving Interpretations of Article 21

Article 21 has grown from protecting survival to ensuring dignity, health, and environmental well-being as part of the right to life. Through landmark rulings, Indian courts have broadened its scope to address pollution, climate risks, and social vulnerabilities, making it a dynamic framework for justice and sustainability.

1. Broadening of Life & Liberty
   1. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi (1981) → The Court clarified that the concept of “life” under Article 21 is not restricted to mere survival but includes the right to live with dignity, health, and overall well-being. This marked an important turn in constitutional law, opening a pathway for linking life and liberty with environmental quality.
   2. Rural Litigation Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) → This case was the first to explicitly link environmental degradation to Article 21. The Court ordered the closure of limestone quarries in Dehradun, recognizing that destruction of forests and ecological systems directly threatened the right to life. This essentially introduced the environment as a constitutional concern.
2. Pollution-Specific Expansion
   1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1980s–1990s) → Introduced emission controls, acknowledging urban air pollution as a direct rights violation. Closed polluting factories in Delhi; integrated precautionary principle.
   2. Subhash Kumar v. Bihar (1991) → The Court made it clear that the right to clean air and water is an essential element of life under Article 21. It recognized that citizens could not enjoy liberty or dignity if they were forced to breathe polluted air or drink contaminated water, placing environmental quality squarely within constitutional protection.
3. Integration with Sustainable Development
   1. Vellore Citizens (1996) → A landmark case that imported the global principles of sustainable development, polluter pays, and precautionary principle into Indian constitutional law. The Court firmly held that development cannot come at the expense of life and the environment, embedding environmental accountability in Article 21’s evolving interpretation.
4. Climate-Health Interpretation
   1. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) → The case emphasized the importance of judicial reliance on scientific expertise while applying the precautionary principle. It highlighted that protecting health and environment requires foresight in cases of uncertainty, especially where the risks of harm are high.
   2. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (2019) → The Supreme Court considered health and climate impacts before allowing large development projects. This case demonstrated how courts began weighing local ecological and climate-health consequences in their constitutional reasoning.
   3. M.K. Ranjitsinh (2024) → A historic judgment declaring freedom from adverse climate impacts as a Fundamental Right under Article 21. The ruling reframed climate change as a direct rights issue, signaling a judicial leap towards climate justice.
   4. Arjun Gopal (2025, ongoing) → Triggered by rising deaths during Delhi’s heatwaves, the Court directed the government to implement heat action plans. This shows the judiciary’s increasing willingness to translate climate-health risks into enforceable rights protections. 
5. Urban Health Crisis: Law Meets Science

The urban health crisis reveals how law and science intersect, with rising pollution and climate-driven illnesses compelling courts to treat clean air and health as core constitutional rights.

1. The Urban Epidemiological Context– Rising chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and childhood asthma prevalence in Delhi attributed directly to particulate matter (PM2.5).

Heatwaves in 2022–2025 caused thousands of deaths; court-mandated government responses reflect acknowledgment of Article 21 implications.

2. Intersectional Impacts– Women in informal labor, children commuting in congested environments, elderly populations more vulnerable.

Pollution often intersects caste and class — marginalized groups located in waste-filled or industrial belts face higher exposure.

3.  Scientific Evidence and Burden of Proof– Courts increasingly use WHO guidelines, IIT and AIIMS research, and satellite-based pollution mapping to substantiate Article 21 claims.

Overall trajectory: Courts moved from preventing direct pollution harms to recognizing systemic climate-driven health threats as fundamental rights violations.

6. Legal Remedies for Urban Pollution Victims

Victims of pollution today possess an expanding toolkit under Article 21, enabling access to justice, health safeguards, compensation, and stronger constitutional protections.

• Writ Remedies & PILs
  • Relaxed locus standi ensures NGOs and public-spirited citizens can file petitions.
  • Delhi’s odd-even scheme and firecracker bans arose from PIL activism.
• Compensation & Liability
  • Oleum Gas Leak doctrine cemented absolute liability for hazardous industries.
  • NGT has ordered compensations for vehicular and air-pollution victims.
• Statutory Mechanisms
  • Air Act (1981), Environment Protection Act (1986), and NGT Act (2010) create penalties and regulatory levers.
• Injunctions & Directives
  • Courts have regularly issued closure orders against non-compliant industries, as seen in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action. Judicial directions often push executive authorities into action, ensuring pollution control is enforced.
• Climate-Specific Remedies
• Emerging litigation now targets heatwave adaptation funds, air quality accountability, and state responsibility for urban climate deaths, reflecting recognition that Article 21 requires rights-based remedies to address escalating climate risks.

7. National Green Tribunal: Achievements and Areas for Strengthening

The National Green Tribunal has advanced environmental justice but requires stronger powers, resources, and wider accessibility for citizens.

• Institutional Role and Key Judgments

The NGT is central to India’s response to urban pollution and climate-related disputes. It enables expedited relief, compensation, and enforcement, but also faces challenges of capacity and jurisdiction.

• Recent Cases (2024–2025)

High-profile cases range from water body protection to climate impact assessments for infrastructural projects. The Supreme Court has directed the NGT to take a more citizen-centric approach, prioritize scientific evidence, and ensure access for marginalized complainants.

• Recommendations for Reform

There is increasing consensus to:

• Mandate climate impact assessments on urban planning
• Enhance participation and legal aid for vulnerable groups
• Address delays and strengthen NGT’s enforcement powers

Challenges

Urban pollution is more than a scientific or policy issue—it is shaped by legal, institutional, and social barriers. Weak enforcement and resource gaps limit accountability, while the urban poor and marginalized face the greatest inequities in health impacts and access to justice.

• Causation Proof: Linking health damage directly to specific pollutants or climate factors remains difficult.
• Institutional Barriers: NGT underfunded and overburdened. Fragmentation between municipal, state, and central institutions.
• Legal hurdles: Establishing causation between illness and pollution exposure. Limited health data for urban poor- weak claims.
• Delayed Enforcement: Compensation payouts are slow; directives often ignored.
• Equity Issues: Marginalized communities lack access to legal aid, making remedies uneven.
• Judicial Overreach Concerns: Some critics argue courts step into policy-making.

Comparative and International Perspectives

The fight against urban pollution is part of a global movement where courts worldwide now recognize clean air and a healthy environment as basic human rights. While India has played a pioneering role, stronger enforcement, scientific grounding, and equitable remedies are essential to advance climate justice.

1. South Asia

• Pakistan’s Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015): recognized “climate justice” for farmers — parallels India’s trajectory.
• Bangladesh: judiciary proactive in climate adaptation cases.

2. Global South

• South Africa: Constitution directly guarantees environmental rights; courts emphasize dignity and health.

3.  Global North

• European Court of Human Rights: cases linking climate inaction to violation of right to life (e.g., KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, 2023).
• Comparative lesson → Indian courts positioned within evolving global rights-based climate jurisprudence.

4. Global Constitutional Jurisprudence

A growing number of climate litigation cases worldwide are successful, particularly against states (as opposed to private entities). The ICJ now recognizes “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” as a human right and imposes obligations on states to reduce emissions.

5. Inter-American Court and Rights of Nature

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2025 declared climate protection a mandatory human right (“ius cogens”) and emphasized protection for vulnerable groups, intergenerational justice, and access to legal remedies.

6. Lessons for India

Comparative studies show that while India’s courts are pioneering, sustained enforcement, legal empowerment, and integration of scientific evidence remain crucial for real impact.

Suggestions

Building an effective response to urban pollution requires more than recognition of the problem—it demands actionable reforms. From strengthening legal institutions to integrating climate–health policies and empowering communities, the following suggestions outline practical pathways to ensure cleaner cities, fairer justice, and healthier lives.

1. Strengthen NGT Powers : Give the National Green Tribunal authority to include climate‑health assessments in all urban planning approvals and provide faster remedies for pollution victims. This would ensure justice is both timely and accessible for affected communities.
2. Integrate Climate–Health Policy : Develop a national climate‑health policy aligning Article 21 with WHO and UN standards, ensuring green spaces and real‑time monitoring in cities. Such a framework would bridge law, health, and global climate commitments.
3. Community Legal Empowerment: Expand legal aid, simplify group litigation, and run awareness campaigns so communities can claim their rights. Empowered citizens are more likely to demand accountability from polluters and policymakers.
4. Judicial and Scientific Training : Provide specialized training for judges on climate science and health epidemiology for better‑informed rulings. This would help courts deliver evidence‑based judgments in complex environmental cases.
5. Preventive Mechanisms : Adopt stricter emission standards, promote sustainable transport, and incentivize renewable energy to reduce pollution at the source. Prevention would lower health risks and lessen dependence on lengthy litigation.
6. Global Partnerships : Align India’s remedial frameworks with international climate finance and adaptation mechanisms—channeling resources into urban health infrastructure.

Effective remedies must protect the most vulnerable—urban poor, children, elderly, and workers—by ensuring equity in city planning and enforcement. Aligning Article 21 with global standards, expanding green spaces, and strengthening clean transport and renewable energy are vital to build climate-resilient, healthier cities.

Evolving Recommendations: Towards an Effective Legal Framework

• Strengthen NGT and local tribunals: Mandate climate health criteria in all urban planning and zoning approvals.
• Expand community legal aid: Support NGOs and class action suits; introduce accessible, simplified grievance mechanisms.
• Enhance judicial and scientific training: Upgrade court capacity to interpret complex health and environmental data.
• Foster international cooperation: Leverage funding and expertise from global climate adaptation programs.
• Develop targeted regulatory reforms: Impose higher penalties for ongoing non-compliance and establish real-time air and water quality data systems.

Conclusion

Article 21 has evolved from a narrow safeguard of liberty into a broad guarantee of a dignified, healthy life that includes the right to a clean environment. This shift is critical as India faces rising pollution, heatwaves, and climate-driven health risks, especially in cities. Judicial activism has expanded access to justice through PILs, strict liability for polluters, and citizen remedies. However, weak enforcement and systemic inequalities continue to limit protection for vulnerable groups. Strengthening the NGT, integrating climate–health policies, empowering communities, and building judicial capacity in climate science are key to making Article 21 a true foundation for sustainable and equitable urban development.

AUTHOR:

Manasvi Yadav

University Of Allahabad