(GS Paper II – Judiciary & Constitution | GS Paper III – Environment & Sustainable Development)
Context
Recent judicial and policy developments reveal a gradual dilution of India’s environmental jurisprudence, where ecological safeguards are increasingly subordinated to developmental priorities, raising serious constitutional concerns regarding Article 21, environmental justice, and intergenerational equity.
Evolution of Environmental Jurisprudence in India
- Indian courts historically played a transformative role in environmental protection by expanding the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
- Landmark doctrines such as the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, and Public Trust Doctrinewere judicially evolved.
- In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court firmly embedded the precautionary principle into Indian environmental law.
- In M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996), the Court held that natural resources are held by the State in trust for the people and cannot be exploited for private gain.
- Courts emerged as custodians of environmental rights, particularly when executive enforcement was weak.
Recent Judicial Trends Indicating Dilution
- A policy shift allowing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) after land acquisition, even without clarity on location and extent, weakens preventive environmental scrutiny.
- The recall of Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), which had banned retrospective environmental clearances, diluted deterrence against illegal mining and infrastructure violations.
- Earlier, in Common Cause vs Union of India (2017), the Court categorically held that post-facto environmental clearances undermine the rule of law and cannot legalise illegality.
- Despite this, judicial tolerance of conditional and retrospective clearances signals a departure from strict compliance-based environmental governance.
Aravalli Ranges: A Case Study in Jurisprudential Retreat
- The Aravallis are ecologically vital for groundwater recharge, climate moderation, soil stability, and desertification control in north-west India.
- In M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court imposed a ban on mining in the Aravalli region, recognising irreversible ecological damage.
- Subsequent orders culminating in 2010 rejected attempts to define Aravallis solely based on elevation, noting that low-lying ridges are ecologically crucial.
- The Court explicitly rejected the 100-metre height criterion, recognising the Aravallis as a geomorphological and hydrological system, not isolated peaks.
- However, in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges (2025), the Supreme Court accepted the height-based definition, excluding large ecologically significant areas from protection.
- This arbitrary classification lacks rational nexus with ecological objectives, violating Article 14 (non-arbitrariness) and weakening Article 48A (Directive Principle on environment protection).
Mangroves, Himalayas and Infrastructure Push
- Judicial approval for the destruction of 158 mangroves for Adani Cementation Ltd. (2025) in Raigarh reflects reliance on compensatory afforestation over ecological integrity.
- Mangroves act as natural flood buffers, carbon sinks, and biodiversity reservoirs, and cannot be replaced within short timeframes.
- In Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021), the Court acknowledged the fragility of the Himalayan ecosystem but permitted wider roads under the Char Dham highway project citing strategic needs.
- A 2025 study identifying 811 landslide-prone zones along the project raises concerns about this “balancing approach”.
- The Himalayan floods and landslides expose the long-term ecological costs of infrastructure-led development.
Procedural Fairness and Corporate Influence
- Environmental clearances for large corporations often pass with minimal scrutiny, while objections are labelled obstructionist.
- Public hearings are reduced to procedural formalities, undermining participatory governance envisaged under environmental laws.
- Preferential treatment to capital-intensive projects raises concerns under Article 14, as procedural fairness and equality before law are compromised.
- Environmental compliance risks becoming a checklist rather than a substantive safeguard.
Constitutional Implications
- Dilution of environmental safeguards directly affects Article 21, which guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment.
- Article 48A (State’s duty to protect environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens’ duty) are rendered ineffective without judicial enforcement.
- Selective ecological protection based on artificial criteria violates the constitutional principle of non-arbitrariness.
- Intergenerational equity — central to sustainable development — is increasingly ignored.
Way Forward: Reinvigorating Environmental Justice
- Restore ecosystem-based interpretations instead of narrow technical definitions.
- Strictly prohibit post-facto and conditional environmental clearances, in line with Common Cause (2017).
- Institutionalise regular Green Benches in the Supreme Court and High Courts with scientific and ecological expertise.
- Reaffirm foundational doctrines such as the Public Trust Doctrine and Precautionary Principle.
- Balance development and national security with ecological limits through transparent, science-based decision-making.
Conclusion
India’s environmental jurisprudence stands at a constitutional crossroads. Courts that once expanded ecological protections now risk legitimising environmental degradation. Reclaiming judicial leadership is essential to preserve constitutional morality, ecological resilience, and the rights of future generations.
Mains Question
- Indian courts have historically strengthened environmental protection through constitutional interpretation and judicial doctrines. Discuss (250 words)
Source: The Hindu