High Court prioritises right to life over business rights

In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental conservation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that public interest, including environmental protection, must override private economic considerations. “The right to life is higher than the rights flowing from Article 19, i.e., to carry business,” the court observed.

The Bench also made it clear that the stone crushers could not be permitted to exist within the periphery of 500 metres from the educational institutions, even if the schools came into existence subsequently. “The stone-crushing units and the schools cannot co-exist side by side because it would adversely impact the health of the children, who are the future of the nation,” the court asserted.

The ruling came as the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal dismissed 28 petitions challenging the Haryana Government’s notifications on the location norms for stone crushers.

The petitioners had contested the State Government’s final notification dated May 11, 2016, and its amendment on April 4, 2019, mandating stricter norms for the operation of stone crushers.

The Bench rejected the challenges while emphasising the evolving nature of environmental requirements and the State’s responsibility under Article 48A of the Constitution to protect and improve the environment.

The Bench observed the government must be permitted to modify its stance, if overriding public interest demanded it. Referring to the importance of the State’s proactive role in environmental protection, the court asserted: “The environmental requirements are not static, as they must be dynamic. With the development in the area, the government’s priority is to maintain ecological balance as a part of its responsibility to ensure sustainable development, environmental protection and welfare of its citizens.”

Addressing public health risks, the Bench observed the pollution caused by the stone crushers was inherently injurious to the health of all living beings including humans, wildlife, rivers, and plants. “The efforts made to maintain delicate ecological balance, which is the need of the hour particularly in view of rising pollution, is not required to be interfered with.”

The court also noted the severe impact of stone crushers on the environment. “Stone crushers generate significant amounts of fine fugitive dust. The dust poses serious health risk to workers and nearby communities, contributing to respiratory illnesses. Additionally, it diminishes visibility, inhibits vegetation growth, and negatively impacts the area’s aesthetics.”

The court also did not find merit in the petitioners’ arguments about potential employment loss. “The workers can shift to new crushing zones as and when the stone crushers are set up in the allowed areas.”

Dismissing the petitions, the court ruled environment protection was a dynamic and evolving responsibility requiring constant adaptation to address emerging challenges and prevent degradation. Activities posing significant risk to ecological balance, such as the stone-crushing operations, demanded stringent regulatory oversight to safeguard natural resources and the wellbeing of all living beings. “Upholding these principles not only aligns with constitutional and legal obligations but also secures the planet’s health for future generations,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted, while speaking for the Bench.