Freedom of Trade & Commerce and Environment
Article 19(1) (g) guarantees all citizens the right “to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”. This right of the citizens is not absolute. It is subject to Article 19(6) under which “reasonable restrictions” in the “interest of the general public” can be imposed. Thus, environmental interest from the hazards of any trade or business can be protected.
Cannot reap profit at cost of Public Health
The Gujarat High Court in Abhilash Textiles v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation made clear that, ‘the petitioners cannot be allowed to reap profit at the cost of public health’. In this case petitioners conducting the business of dyeing and printing works in Rajkot area were discharging dirty water from the factory on the public road and in public drains without purifying the same, thereby causing damage to the public health. The petitioners claimed that they were carrying on the business for the last 20 to 25 years and the industry was providing employment to twenty to thirty thousand families. Notice to close would be very harsh as they would be compelled to close down the factory and would also be violative of Article 19(1) (g).The Court held that one cannot carry on the business in the manner by which the business activity becomes a health hazard to the entire society. By discharge of effluent water on public road or in public drainage system the entire environment of the locality gets polluted. No citizen can assert his right to carry on business without any regard to the fundamental duty under Article 51-A (g)to protect and improve the natural environment. The Court further directed that if the petitioners wish to carry on the business then they must provide for purification plant before discharging the effluents on public roads or in public drainage system. The petitioner had no right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on business without complying with the Municipal Law and other environmental statutes.
M.C. Mehta v. Union Case
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India where tanneries were discharging effluents from their factories in the holy river Ganga resulting in water pollution and not setting up a primary treatment plant in spite of being asked to do for several years. It was held that, an order directing them to stop working their tanneries should be passed as effluent discharge from tanneries is ten times noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flow in to the river and the court passed the following order: “We are, therefore, issuing the directions for the closure of those tanneries which have failed to take minimum steps required for the primary treatment of industrial effluent. We are conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people”.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India the Supreme Court directed that certain industries which were not showing any progress regarding the installation of the air pollution controlling system in compliance with the Supreme Courts earlier order, should be closed. In this case the Supreme Court did not refer Article 19 (1) (g)however it is implied that while passing the order it had in its mind Article 19 (1) (g)read with Article 19 (6) and 21 of the Constitution.
Also read - Freedom of Speech and Expression and Environment
0 Comments