Analysis of Religious Freedom and Environmental Protection in India
- Hindu College Gazette Web Team
- 3 hours ago
- 9 min read
Crisp Summary
This paper examines the constitutional balance between religious freedom and environmental protection in India. It argues that while Articles 25-28 guarantee religious freedom, these rights are subject to public health, morality, and environmental concerns. By examining constitutional provisions and landmark judicial decisions, it demonstrates that environmentally harmful religious practices may be regulated to protect the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21, promoting sustainable and responsible exercise of religious freedoms.
Introduction
Harming Environment during festivals, Religious Practices not protected by Right to Freedom of Religion : Justice Oka.
The environment represents the very foundation of human existence, encompassing essential natural elements such as air, water, forests, wildlife, and biodiversity, all of which are deeply interconnected with human survival and development. Human life is not isolated from nature; rather, it is dependent upon ecological balance for its continuity and well-being. From the earliest phases of Civilisation, human societies have recognised the importance of maintaining harmony with nature. In the Indian context, this relationship has been particularly profound, as ancient scriptures such as the Vedas, Dharam-Shastras, and various religious texts have consistently emphasised the sacredness of natural elements. Rivers, forests, mountains, and animals have been worshipped and revered, symbolising a deep ecological consciousness embedded within religious traditions.
The right to live in a clean and healthy environment, therefore, is not a modern legal invention but has long been acknowledged as an essential aspect of life. What distinguishes the contemporary understanding of this right is its transformation into a constitutionally recognised fundamental right, enforceable through judicial mechanisms. The Indian Constitution, through judicial interpretation, has elevated environmental protection to the level of a basic human right, ensuring that violations are subject to legal scrutiny and remedy.
However, a significant paradox exists within this framework. While the Constitution guarantees secularism and ensures freedom of religion, environmental degradation is often justified under the guise of religious practices. Rituals and customs, though culturally significant, sometimes lead to pollution and ecological harm. This creates a tension between two important constitutional values: the right to freedom of religion and the right to a healthy environment. This assignment seeks to analyse this conflict by examining how religious practices contribute to environmental degradation and how constitutional and judicial mechanisms attempt to balance these competing interests.
Freedom of Religion
India is a secular state, which implies that the State maintains neutrality in matters of religion and ensures equal respect and treatment for all religious communities. Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. These provisions form the cornerstone of religious liberty in India and reflect the pluralistic nature of Indian society.
However religious freedom in India is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality and health. This limitation is particularly relevant when religious practices interfere with the rights of others or cause harm to society at large. Thus, while individuals have the right to practice their religion, such practices must not violate the broader public interest or infringe upon the rights of others.
In practice, several religious customs and traditions in India have significant environmental implications. For instance, many rituals involve the immersion of idols, ashes, flowers, and other offerings into rivers and water bodies. Festivals such as Ganesh Visarjan, Durga Puja, Kumbh Mela, and Rath Yatra witness large-scale immersion activities that contribute to water pollution. The use of non-biodegradable materials in idol making, chemical paints, and synthetic decorations further exacerbates the problem, leading to contamination of water resources and harm to aquatic ecosystems.
Another major issue is noise pollution arising from the use of loudspeakers and amplifiers during religious events. Continuous exposure to high levels of noise can adversely affect human health, causing stress, hearing impairment, and disruption of daily activities. Courts in India have repeatedly intervened to regulate such practices, emphasizing that religious freedom cannot be exercised in a manner that disturbs public peace or harms the environment. The Bombay High Court in January 2025 declared that the use of loudspeakers is not an Essential Religious Practice (ERP) of Muslims and strict provisions should be made to regulate this.
Judicial Approach to Noise Pollution and Religion
Daily religious activities such as azaans, aartis, hymns, and festivals form an essential part of Indian cultural fabric. . However, these practices often lead to debates. This leads to a conflict between Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 21 (right to peaceful life).The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 recognise noise as a pollutant when it exceeds prescribed limits and harms health. The World Health Organisation also defines noise as unwanted sound that can cause sleep disturbance, hypertension, and cognitive issues.
The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislus v State of Mp6 affirmed that religious freedom is not absolute and can be restricted to maintain public order and prevent harm to others. Again, in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association7 the Supreme Court held that even if noise pollution arises from religious activities, it can be regulated by the State. The Court emphasized that “no religion prescribes practices that disturb the peace and tranquility of others, and therefore, the use of loudspeakers and amplifiers can be restricted”. In Re: Noise Pollution- Implementation of laws (2005) This case led to nationwide banning of use of loudspeakers between 10pm to 6am. Similarly, in Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Government of NCT of Delhi The Court recognized noise as a form of environmental pollution that can violate the right to life under Article 21 if it exceeds permissible limits. This case highlighted the growing recognition of noise pollution as a serious environmental and health concern. The judgement of Bombay High Court in State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali10 has been used as a precedent by several High Courts to issue directives on Loudspeakers since this judgement cleared the way for the Courts to interfere in Non-Essential Religious Practices.
The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right, further strengthened the argument for regulating noise pollution. Excessive noise can intrude upon an individual’s privacy and dignity, thereby justifying restrictions on its use. Through these decisions, the judiciary has established a clear principle: religious practices cannot be allowed to compromise public health, environmental quality or the fundamental rights of others.
The Special Case Of Ganga
In the case of Ganga Pollution vs State of UP and Others, the Allahabad High Court exhibited judicial activism by registering Suo Moto PIL to restore the quality of Ganga water. In the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd. Salim, 201713 the Uttarakhand High Court granted the River Ganga the status of a “living entity” based on its religious significance for Hindus, however the Supreme Court stayed this order through a one-line, unreasoned interim order, merely stating that the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. This is significant because in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. (2010), the Supreme Court itself had emphasized that reasons are the life of judicial orders. The absence of reasoning in the stay order raises concerns about judicial accountability, as reasoned decisions reflect proper application of judicial mind.14
In M/S Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Jal Nigam, 2021 the Allahabad High Court highlighted the importance of the government’s Namami Gange programme and directed its effective and speedy implementation to restore the deteriorating condition of rivers like Gomti.15
In Purvanchal Nav Nirman Sansthan v. GNCTD, the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking permission for Chhath Puja rituals due to high pollution levels in the Yamuna, prioritising environmental concerns over religious practices.
In Ganga Pollution v. State of UP (2021), the Allahabad High Court directed scientific assessment of Ganga water by IIT Kanpur and IIT BHU and imposed restrictions on plastic bags below 50 microns to curb pollution.
Further, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2019), the National Green Tribunal criticised states such as Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal for failing to comply with long-standing Supreme Court directions on Ganga pollution and imposed environmental compensation of ₹25 lakh on each state.
Regulation of Religious Activities Affecting Environment
The Supreme Court in a significant decision in Arjun Gopal v UOI (2018), permitted the limited sale and use of firecrackers in NCT Delhi during Diwali. The Bench observed that although the smuggling of unapproved firecrackers has aggravated pollution levels, “We have to take a balanced approach, permitting it in moderation while not compromising with the environment.
Activities such as excessive use of loudspeakers, bursting of firecrackers, and environmentally harmful rituals can be regulated in the interest of public welfare. The judiciary has also pointed out that modern technological devices like loudspeakers are not intrinsic to any religion, and therefore, their regulation does not violate religious freedom.
On 4th April 2025 SC reiterated that restrictions on firecrackers should be maintained in the interest of public health as it declined to entertain applications from firecracker manufacturers and trade associations. SC observed that “There’s nothing green about green crackers”.
This approach reflects a balanced interpretation of constitutional rights, ensuring that religious freedom is respected while safeguarding environmental interests.
Right to Healthy Environment as Part of Article 21
The judiciary has interpreted the right to life to include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, recognising that environmental degradation directly affects human dignity and quality of life. The first major recognition of this principle came in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, where the Supreme Court intervened to stop environmentally harmful mining activities. This case demonstrated the Court’s willingness to prioritise environmental protection over economic interests.
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Court declared that access to water is a fundamental aspect of the right to life. Water is essential for survival, and its availability must be ensured for all citizens.
In T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, the Court further expanded the scope of environmental rights by holding that the right to life includes the right to an environment conducive to health and well-being.24
In Ranji Patel v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch, the Court emphasised that pollution of air, water, and soil poses a direct threat to life under Article 21.25
Similarly, in the State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., the Court held that environmental pollution violates the right to life, as a healthy environment is essential for human dignity.
These cases collectively establish that environmental protection is not merely a policy objective but a fundamental right enforceable through judicial intervention.
Directive Principles of State Policy
The Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, provide important guidelines for governance and policymaking. Although these principles are not directly enforceable, they play a crucial role in shaping laws and judicial interpretations.
Article 47 directs the State to improve public health and the standard of living, which inherently includes environmental protection. A healthy environment is essential for maintaining public health, and therefore, environmental concerns are integral to this directive.
Article 48A specifically mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. This provision reflects the growing recognition of environmental protection as a key responsibility of the State.
In Shri Sachchidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts must consider Articles 48A and 51A(g) when addressing environmental issues. The Court highlighted the importance of integrating directive principles and fundamental duties into judicial decision-making.28
Similarly, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court observed that various constitutional provisions collectively impose a duty on the State to protect public health and the environment. This case marked a significant step in the development of environmental jurisprudence in India.29
Conclusion
Religion and environment are both fundamental aspects of human existence, and their harmonious coexistence is essential for sustainable development. While religious practices play an important role in cultural and spiritual life, they must not lead to environmental degradation.
The true essence of religion lies in purity and harmony, which must extend beyond the individual to encompass the natural world. Environmental protection is not only a legal obligation but also a moral responsibility that requires collective action.
The survival of human civilization depends on the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources. While laws, judicial decisions, and government initiatives provide a framework for environmental protection, the ultimate responsibility lies with individuals. By adopting environmentally conscious practices, society can ensure that the natural environment is preserved for future generations.
Thus, the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right, but its realization depends on a balance between rights and duties, as well as a commitment to sustainable living.
By Faizan Hussain
He is a antepenultimate law student at JMI driven by curiosity and a love for research and analytical thinking. For Faizan, law is not just about rules it’s about uncovering patterns, asking critical questions, and finding solutions that matter. He enjoys diving deep into complex problems, breaking them down with logic, and connecting ideas across law, society, and business.
References
Debby Jain & Gursimran Kaur Bakshi, (07-12-2025) Live Law https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/justice-abhay-oka-vm-tarkunde-lecture-damaging-environment-by-religious-practices-during-festivals-not-protected-under-article-25-312506
Singh Harvinder,Environmental Protection and right to religion , SRCC Edu. https://www.srcc.edu/sites.
Dr. Gagandeep Kaur, Environmental Protection Vis -a -Vis Religious Beliefs In India; National Journal Of Environmental Law . Vol 1.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000.
Environmental (Protection)Act 1986, Act No.29 of 1986.
6 1977 AIR 908 7 2000 AIR SCW 3089. 6AIR 2005 SC 3136
AIR 2001DELHI 455
AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841.
Ganga Pollution vs State of Up (NGT) 2025
SCC 785.
AHC 89303.
Purvanchal Nav Nirman Sansthan v GNCTD 2024.
Supra note 9.
2019(10) SCC 614.
2019(13) SCC 523.
Ibid.
1985(2) SCC 431.
AIR 2000 SC 3751. 24 1997 (2) SCC 267. 25 2000(3) SCC 29
AUR 2003 SC 3236.
Comments