| TITLE |
Right to Health and Environmental Safety under Article 21 Constitutional Challenges in Pesticide Regulation in India |
| ABSTRACT |
India, as one of the world's largest consumers of pesticides, faces a persistent tension between agricultural productivity and the protection of fundamental rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to encompass the right to health, a pollution-free environment, and dignified living. This includes safeguards against hazardous substances like pesticides, which cause acute poisoning, chronic illnesses (including neurological disorders, reproductive issues, and cancers), and widespread environmental degradation through soil, water, and biodiversity contamination.
Despite regulatory mechanisms under the Insecticides Act, 1968, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, significant gaps persist in enforcement, residue monitoring, and timely bans on hazardous chemicals. The draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, introduced to replace the outdated 1968 law, aims to modernize regulation but has been criticized for prioritizing industry ease over robust health and ecological protections, and for failing to adequately empower states or address the continued use of highly hazardous pesticides.
This paper examines the constitutional challenges arising from these regulatory shortcomings, drawing on landmark judicial expansions of Article 21—such as the right to a healthy environment (M.C. Mehta cases), occupational health safeguards, and the emerging recognition of protection from adverse climate and pollution impacts (e.g., M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024). It analyzes high-profile cases involving pesticide tragedies (e.g., ongoing endosulfan aftermath in Kerala, with recent NGT directions in 2025 on missing barrels) and empirical evidence of rising health burdens, including pesticide-linked poisonings and residues in food chains.
Employing a doctrinal and analytical methodology, the study highlights implementation failures, federalism issues, and access-to-justice barriers for affected farmers and communities. It concludes that aligning pesticide governance with Article 21's imperatives requires urgent reforms: stronger application of the precautionary principle, mandatory health and environmental impact assessments, promotion of sustainable alternatives like integrated pest management and biopesticides, and enhanced judicial and institutional oversight to prevent irreversible harm to public health and ecosystems while supporting agricultural needs.
|
| AUTHOR |
Harsh Punia
Student-2nd Semester LLB, Manipal University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India |
| PUBLICATION DATE |
2026-01-29 09:53:25 |
| VOLUME |
14 |
| ISSUE |
1 |
| DOI |
DOI: 10.15662/IJMSERH.2026.1401007 |
| PDF |
pdf/2026/1/7_Right to Health and Environmental Safety under Article 21 Constitutional Challenges in Pesticide Regulation in India.pdf |
| KEYWORDS |
|
| References |
(A) Primary Sources
(i) Constitution of India
1. The Constitution of India, 1950 (as amended), particularly Articles 21, 32, 226, 39, 47, 48A, and 51A(g).
(ii) Statutes and Rules
1. Insecticides Act, 1968.
2. Insecticides Rules, 1971.
3. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
4. Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
5. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
6. Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 (as amended).
7. Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
8. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
(iii) Case Laws
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
2. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), (1987) 1 SCC 395.
4. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
5. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
6. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37.
7. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
8. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
9. Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 689.
10. M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280 (Supreme Court of India, March 21, 2024).
(B) Secondary Sources
(i) Books
1. Rosencranz, Armin, and Shyam Divan. Environmental Law and Policy in India. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, 2022.
2. Leelakrishnan, P. Environmental Law in India. 5th ed. LexisNexis, 2020.
3. Divan, Shyam, and Armin Rosencranz. Environmental Law and Policy in India: Cases, Materials, and Statutes. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2001 (with subsequent updates).
(ii) Journal Articles and Reports
1. Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Various reports on pesticide residues in food (e.g., "Poison vs Nutrition" series).
2. World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Joint assessments on pesticide exposure and residues in developing countries.
3. Articles in Economic & Political Weekly (EPW) on pesticide regulation, farmer health, and environmental impacts.
4. Publications in Journal of Indian Law and Society critiquing the Insecticides Act and proposed reforms.
(iii) Policy and Media Analyses
1. Down To Earth. Articles on the draft Pesticides Management Bill and endosulfan issues.
2. Mongabay-India. Critiques of pesticide regulation modernization and public health protections.
3. Reports and orders of the National Green Tribunal (e.g., proceedings related to endosulfan contamination in Kerala, including directions issued in late 2025).
(iv) Government and International Documents
1. Draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025 (released by the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare).
2. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (India's compliance reports).
3. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Annual reports on accidental and suicidal poisonings. |
