Balancing Livelihood and Environment: Legal Safeguards under Article 21

Can a government demolish someone’s home in the name of environmental improvement? Can a power plant project displace tribal communities from forests they’ve depended on for centuries? These are not hypothetical questions. Indian courts have grappled with them repeatedly, shaping a body of law that tries to protect both the environment and the livelihoods of vulnerable people. At the centre of this legal balancing act is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life – a right the judiciary has interpreted broadly to include the right to livelihood, shelter, and a clean environment.

What does Article 21 have to do with livelihood and environment? 🔗

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. On the surface, it seems limited to physical survival. But over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has expanded this provision significantly. The right to life now includes the right to live with dignity, the right to a clean environment, and critically, the right to livelihood.

This expanded interpretation creates a unique tension. Environmental protection measures – shutting down polluting industries, reserving forest land, restricting mining – can directly threaten people’s ability to earn a living. Workers lose jobs when factories close. Tribal communities lose access to forests when land is declared a reserve. Urban poor lose their homes when slums are cleared for city beautification. The judiciary has had to step in repeatedly to mediate between these competing demands.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: the case that defined the right to livelihood 🔗

The 1985 case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation remains one of the most important rulings on the relationship between livelihood and Article 21. The case arose when the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict pavement and slum dwellers from Mumbai as part of a city beautification drive. The move affected thousands of people who had migrated from rural areas and depended on the city for their livelihoods.

What the petitioners argued 🔗

The petitioners, led by journalist Olga Tellis, argued that evicting them from their shelters would strip them of their means of subsistence. Since they had no other place to live, and their pavement dwellings were located near their workplaces, eviction would effectively destroy their ability to work and survive. Their contention was straightforward: the right to life is meaningless without the right to the means by which life can be sustained.

What the Supreme Court held 🔗

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. The Court reasoned that if the state is obligated to provide citizens with adequate means of livelihood, then excluding livelihood from the scope of the right to life would be inconsistent. The Court also referenced Articles 39(a) and 41 of the Constitution, which are Directive Principles directing the state to ensure adequate livelihoods and public assistance during times of need.

However, the Court also clarified that the right to livelihood is not absolute. Deprivation of livelihood is permissible if it follows a just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by law. The Court evaluated Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and found it procedurally fair, but directed that evictions should not happen during monsoon season to minimise hardship.

The lasting impact – and the irony 🔗

The Olga Tellis decision expanded the constitutional protection available to the urban poor. But it also had an unintended consequence. As Olga Tellis herself later observed, the ruling was sometimes used to justify evictions as long as proper legal procedure was followed. This highlights a recurring challenge: legal victories for marginalised communities often come with conditions that the state can use to its advantage.

Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of UP: protecting tribal livelihoods from development projects 🔗

If the Olga Tellis case dealt with urban displacement, the 1986 case of Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of UP brought the issue of rural and tribal displacement into sharp focus. The case involved Adivasi communities in the Dudhi and Robertsganj tehsils of Mirzapur district in Uttar Pradesh, who had lived in and around forest lands for generations.

The dispute 🔗

The state government declared large areas of jungle land as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. This restricted the tribal communities from accessing the forests for food, fodder, fuel, timber, and other necessities they had traditionally depended on. Forest officials began interfering with their movements, filing criminal cases for encroachment, and even initiating eviction proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

To complicate matters further, the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) decided to set up the Rihand Super Thermal Power Project on land that overlapped with the disputed areas. This meant additional displacement for the tribal population.

The Court’s balancing act 🔗

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, recognised that forests are a national asset essential for ecological balance. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the tribal communities had legitimate claims based on generations of habitation and dependence on these forests. The Court also noted that energy generation was a matter of national importance that could not be indefinitely delayed.

Rather than choosing one side, the Court issued a series of practical directives. It appointed a High Power Committee to investigate and adjudicate the tribal communities’ claims to land and related rights. It ordered that no tribal person would be dispossessed until their claims were properly resolved. The Court also directed the state government to provide legal aid to the tribal claimants so they could effectively assert their rights.

For the NTPC project, the Court freed approximately 1,796 acres of land from its earlier prohibition on dispossession, but ensured that proper rehabilitation measures were in place for affected people. This approach – permitting development while simultaneously protecting the displaced – became a model for future cases involving tribal rights and large-scale projects.

The judiciary’s broader role in balancing environment and livelihood 🔗

The Olga Tellis and Banwasi Seva Ashram cases are not isolated instances. Indian courts have consistently been called upon to mediate between environmental protection and economic survival. This mediation has given rise to several important legal principles.

Sustainable development as a legal principle 🔗

The 1996 case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India is a landmark in this regard. Tanneries in Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents into the Palar River, destroying agricultural land and contaminating drinking water. The Supreme Court held that sustainable development is a binding legal principle in India, one that balances economic growth with environmental preservation. It incorporated the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle into Indian environmental law.

The Court imposed fines on polluting tanneries and directed the creation of an Environmental Protection Fund. But critically, the judgment also acknowledged that tanneries were a significant source of livelihood in the Vellore region. The solution was not to shut down the industry entirely but to compel compliance with pollution standards while allowing the economic activity to continue.

The Narmada dam cases 🔗

The Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) case brought national attention to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people – many of them from tribal and farming communities – by large dam projects. The Supreme Court allowed the construction to proceed but directed that adequate rehabilitation and resettlement must happen before displacement. In practice, however, many affected communities were not properly resettled, revealing the gap between judicial directives and ground-level implementation.

The right to a clean environment as a fundamental right 🔗

The judiciary has progressively recognised that the right to a pollution-free environment is itself a part of Article 21. The M.K. Ranjitsinh case (2024) went even further, recognising the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 14. This is significant because climate change disproportionately affects the same communities whose livelihoods are most vulnerable – small farmers, tribal groups, and the urban poor.

Key principles the judiciary uses to balance these rights 🔗

Over the years, Indian courts have developed a toolkit of principles for navigating the tension between environmental goals and livelihood protection.

Sustainable development: Economic activities must be carried out in ways that do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This doctrine, endorsed as part of Indian law in the Vellore Citizens case, provides the overarching framework for judicial decision-making.

Precautionary principle: When there is a risk of serious environmental harm, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone protective measures. The burden of proof shifts to the entity causing the potential harm.

Polluter pays principle: Those who cause environmental damage must bear the cost of restoring the environment and compensating affected communities. This ensures that industries cannot externalise the costs of pollution onto vulnerable populations.

Due process and rehabilitation: Displacement of communities – whether for environmental or developmental reasons – must follow a fair procedure. Courts have consistently directed that adequate rehabilitation and resettlement plans be in place before any eviction takes place.

Public trust doctrine: Natural resources are held by the state in trust for the public. This limits the government’s ability to hand over environmental commons to private interests without accountability.

Why this balance remains difficult 🔗

Despite the strong legal framework, the conflict between livelihood and environment continues to generate difficult situations. Coal miners face unemployment when mines are closed for environmental reasons. Fishers lose access to coastal areas designated as protected zones. Street vendors are displaced when cities pursue green urban planning.

The implementation gap is perhaps the biggest challenge. Courts can issue directives for rehabilitation, but enforcement depends on government agencies that are often slow, underfunded, or politically constrained. The Banwasi Seva Ashram case itself required continued judicial monitoring years after the original order, and the Narmada dam case showed that even specific rehabilitation orders may not translate into actual resettlement on the ground.

There is also the question of who bears the cost of environmental protection. When a polluting factory is shut down, the factory owner may lose profit, but the workers lose their entire livelihood. Current legal mechanisms do not always adequately address this disparity. The recognition of climate change as a rights issue in the Ranjitsinh case is a positive step, but converting that recognition into tangible protections for climate-vulnerable communities remains a work in progress.

The way forward 🔗

The Indian judiciary has built a remarkable body of law that treats both livelihood and environment as dimensions of the fundamental right to life. From the Olga Tellis case establishing livelihood as integral to Article 21, to the Banwasi Seva Ashram ruling protecting tribal communities from arbitrary displacement, to the Vellore Citizens case embedding sustainable development into Indian law, the courts have consistently sought a middle path.

But legal principles alone are insufficient. Effective protection requires robust implementation mechanisms, adequate funding for rehabilitation, meaningful community participation in decision-making, and a genuine commitment from the state to treat environmental justice and livelihood security as complementary rather than competing goals.

What do you think? Can sustainable development truly work when the people most affected by environmental decisions – tribal communities, urban poor, daily wage workers – often have the least voice in shaping those decisions? And should courts be the primary institution balancing these rights, or should legislatures create more comprehensive frameworks that address both livelihood and environmental protection proactively?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/
2. https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/olga-tellis-ors-v-bombay-municipal-council-1985-2-supp-scr-51/
3. https://lawbhoomi.com/olga-tellis-v-bombay-municipal-corporation/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Tellis_v._Bombay_Municipal_Corporation
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90094/
6. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/balancing-adivasi-land-rights-and-national-development:-an-analysis-of-banwasi-seva-ashram-v.-state-of-uttar-pradesh-(1986)/view
7. https://legalaiddnlu.wordpress.com/2020/07/02/banwasi-seva-ashram-v-state-of-up-and-ors/
8. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/
9. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13637-case-analysis-vellore-citizens-welfare-forum-v-s-union-of-india.html
10. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/04/20/a-breath-of-fresh-air-indian-supreme-court-declares-protection-from-climate-change-a-fundamental-right/
11. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/jud.htm
12. https://recordoflaw.in/balancing-development-and-ecology-climate-justice-and-legal-protections-in-india/