The landmark case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. is a milestone in Indian environmental jurisprudence. Decided by the Supreme Court of India, the case is notable for recognizing the right to a pollution-free environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case also emphasized the duty of industries and state authorities to ensure environmental protection.

Bench
Justice K.N. Singh, Justice N.D. Ojha, and Justice N.M. Kasliwal.

Brief Facts
The petitioner, Subhash Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) was discharging slurry into the Bokaro River, thereby polluting it. The petitioner contended that the pollution adversely affected the quality of water, rendering it unfit for consumption by local residents and breaching their right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
Issues Involved

• Whether the discharge of industrial waste into the Bokaro River violated the fundamental right to a clean and pollution-free environment under Article 21.
• Whether the writ petition was maintainable for enforcing environmental rights.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Subhash Kumar):

• Argued that the Bokaro River was heavily polluted due to the continuous discharge of industrial slurry by TISCO, infringing upon the residents' right to access clean water.
• Asserted that such environmental degradation violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Respondents (State of Bihar & TISCO):

• Denied the allegations, arguing that TISCO adhered to environmental regulations.
• Contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was pursuing a private interest rather than a public interest.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner lacked bona fide public interest and appeared to have ulterior motives. However, the Court laid down significant principles regarding environmental protection.
 

Key Observations by the Court

Right to a Pollution-Free Environment as a Fundamental Right:

• The Court unequivocally stated that the right to live in a clean and pollution-free environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The right to life includes the right to clean drinking water and a pollution-free atmosphere.
   

Environmental Responsibility of Industries:

• Industries have a duty to ensure that their operations do not harm the environment.
• Sustainable development should be a guiding principle for industrial activities.
   

Maintainability of Environmental Cases:

• The Court emphasized that only genuine public interest litigations (PILs) should be entertained.
• The Court warned against the misuse of PILs for personal or political vendettas.
   

Ratio Decidendi The discharge of industrial waste causing environmental harm is a violation of Article 21. However, PILs must be filed with bona fide intent to serve public interest and not for ulterior motives.

Impact of the Case

This case has been instrumental in shaping environmental law in India. It reinforced that environmental protection is intrinsically linked to fundamental rights. The judgment set the stage for future environmental litigation, including cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution case) and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.

Critique
While the case expanded the scope of Article 21 to include environmental rights, the dismissal on procedural grounds limited its immediate impact. Nonetheless, the principles articulated in the judgment remain foundational in Indian environmental jurisprudence.

Conclusion
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar is a seminal case that recognizes the constitutional mandate for environmental protection. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing industrial development with ecological preservation and affirms the right to a clean environment as essential for a dignified life.