Right to development
The international claim to development and how Indian courts balance it with the environment
In one minute
The right to development comes from international documents, not from a Fundamental Right in Part III of the Constitution. The UN Declaration of 1986 calls it an inalienable human right.
Indian courts do not treat development and the environment as enemies. They apply sustainable development to allow a project only with safeguards. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are its essential features.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Long answer (10 to 15 marks)
Legal provision
- Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986: adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 41/128 on 4 December 1986. Article 1(1) says every person and all peoples may take part in and benefit from development.
- Rio Declaration, 1992, Principle 3: the right to development must be fulfilled so as to meet equitably the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
- Constitution: no Article in Part III lists a right to development. Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) supply the environmental side of the balance.
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, section 20: the Tribunal must apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
Meaning and definition
The right to development is the claim of people to share in economic and social progress. The 1986 Declaration treats it as a human right. It is a claim in international law, not a listed right in Indian constitutional law.
Indian courts handle the claim through sustainable development. In Vellore, the Court described it as a balancing concept between ecology and development. It also quoted the Brundtland definition: development that meets the needs of the present without harming the ability of future generations to meet theirs.
- Development and environment
- Right to development (international)1986 Declaration. Rio Principle 3.
- Sustainable development (Indian law)Balancing concept. Includes the precautionary and polluter pays principles.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: the international source
The 1986 Declaration says the right to development is an inalienable human right. Rio Principle 3 adds a limit. The right must meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations equally. This is the idea of intergenerational equity, which means fairness between generations.
Step 2: the Indian approach
Indian courts ask whether a project can go ahead with safeguards. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Court held that the traditional view of development and ecology as opposed is no longer acceptable. It said the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are essential features of sustainable development.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), the Court said "The old concept that development and ecology cannot go together is no longer acceptable." It ordered coal-using industries near the Taj to switch to gas or move.
Example. A district wants a cement plant to create jobs. A court is unlikely to ban it outright. It is more likely to allow the plant with pollution controls and a clear duty to pay for any damage.
Step 3: a project that continues with conditions
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000), a 2:1 majority allowed construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to continue. Increases in dam height were tied to rehabilitation of those displaced. Bharucha J. dissented and would have required fuller compliance first.
Example. A port authority plans to extend a harbour in Andhra Pradesh. Fishing families would lose their landing sites. A court can allow the work only if resettlement and fishing access are secured first.
Step 4: the statute
Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 now requires the Tribunal to apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. The balance is therefore also a statutory duty.
Don't confuse: right to development and sustainable development
| Point | Right to development | Sustainable development |
|---|---|---|
| Source | 1986 UN Declaration; Rio Principle 3 | Indian cases such as Vellore; section 20 of the NGT Act |
| Nature | A claim of people to take part in development | A balancing rule that courts apply |
| Listed in Part III? | No | Not a Fundamental Right. A principle that courts apply and that the NGT must consider under section 20 |
Inside the concept. Tribal families near a mine claim a share in the benefits of the project. They rely on the right to development.
Just outside it. A court tells a power plant to add pollution controls before it runs. This is sustainable development, which the court applies as a balancing rule.
Common mistakes
- Writing that the right to development is a Fundamental Right in the Constitution. It is not listed in Part III.
- Treating the right as a right to develop at any cost. Principle 3 ties it to environmental needs.
- Saying Narmada was unanimous. It was decided 2:1.
- Forgetting that the precautionary and polluter pays principles are part of sustainable development in Vellore.
Apply it
Problem
A State plans a thermal power plant near a town. Residents object to the dust. The State says the plant is essential for development.
Issue
Can the plant be stopped on environmental grounds alone, or must the court balance development?
Rule
Courts apply sustainable development. The industry must meet the precautionary and polluter pays principles.
Application
The court is unlikely to cancel the project outright. It will ask for pollution controls and may require the plant to pay for any damage.
Conclusion
The plant may proceed with enforceable safeguards. The right to development does not override the environment.
Leading case laws
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
Facts. Tanneries in five Tamil Nadu districts polluted the Palar river and the land around it.
Principle. Sustainable development is a balancing concept between ecology and development. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are its essential features.
Why it matters. It is the standard source for the balance.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case)
Facts. Industrial emissions in the Taj Trapezium Zone were damaging the Taj Mahal.
Principle. The old view that development and ecology cannot go together is no longer acceptable. Industries had to switch to natural gas or relocate.
Why it matters. It shows development continuing under limits.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Facts. The Sardar Sarovar Dam displaced many people, mostly tribal and rural communities.
Principle. By a 2:1 majority, the dam could proceed, with height increases tied to rehabilitation.
Why it matters. It shows the balance at work and the limits on judicial review of policy.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- Meaning and source: 1986 Declaration and Rio Principle 3.
- Not listed in Part III.
- Sustainable development as the Indian balance.
- One case: Vellore or Taj.
10-mark answer
- International source and limits in Principle 3.
- Indian position: no Fundamental Right; Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g).
- Vellore: balancing concept and the two principles.
- Taj Trapezium and Narmada.
- Section 20 of the NGT Act.
- Conclusion: development with safeguards.
Key points to remember
- UN Declaration on the Right to Development: 4 December 1986.
- Rio Principle 3 links development with environmental needs of present and future generations.
- Not a listed Fundamental Right in Part III.
- Vellore: sustainable development is a balancing concept.
- Narmada was decided 2:1.
Quick self-test
1. Which document calls development an inalienable human right?
The Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986.
2. How do Indian courts balance development and environment?
Through sustainable development, with the precautionary and polluter pays principles.
3. Was the Narmada decision unanimous?
No. It was decided 2:1.