The Fading of India’s Environmental Jurisprudence
Introduction
India was once hailed as a global pioneer in environmental jurisprudence, where courts transformed constitutional values into powerful ecological safeguards. Through creative interpretation of Article 21, the judiciary expanded the right to life to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. Landmark doctrines such as absolute liability, public trust doctrine, and precautionary principle placed India at the forefront of environmental justice in the Global South.
However, in recent years, concerns have emerged about the gradual dilution of judicial environmental protection, driven by changing development priorities, institutional fatigue, and increasing deference to the executive. The fading of India’s environmental jurisprudence does not imply its disappearance, but rather signals a shift from rights-based ecological constitutionalism to a more utilitarian, project-centric approach.
From Judicial Activism to Environmental Constitutionalism
The golden phase of India’s environmental jurisprudence was marked by judicial activism rooted in constitutional morality. Beginning with cases like M.C. Mehta vs Union of India, the Supreme Court crafted enforceable environmental norms in the absence of comprehensive legislation. The Oleum Gas Leak case established the principle of absolute liability, rejecting Western doctrines that diluted corporate accountability.
Similarly, the evolution of the public trust doctrine in cases such as M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath asserted that natural resources are held by the state in trusteeship for future generations, not as private or commercial assets. The judiciary also operationalised inter-generational equity, recognising that environmental harm today imposes irreversible costs on tomorrow.
The creation of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010 was another milestone, envisioned as a specialised, accessible, and science-driven forum to ensure speedy environmental justice. For several years, the NGT played a transformative role by halting illegal mining, regulating industrial pollution, and protecting wetlands and forests.
This era reflected a judiciary willing to act as a counter-majoritarian institution, prioritising ecological integrity even when it constrained short-term economic gains.
Developmental Push and the Dilution of Ecological Safeguards
In recent years, however, environmental jurisprudence has increasingly reflected a development-first narrative, where ecological concerns are often framed as obstacles rather than constitutional imperatives. Courts have shown greater deference to executive policy choices, particularly in large infrastructure and strategic projects.
Recent judicial responses to projects such as the Char Dham highway expansion, coastal infrastructure development, and linear projects through forested landscapes illustrate this trend. While courts continue to acknowledge environmental risks, they frequently allow projects to proceed with post-facto clearances, mitigation promises, or committee-based oversight, thereby weakening the precautionary principle.
Simultaneously, legislative and executive changes have reshaped the regulatory ecosystem. Amendments to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) norms, greater reliance on ex-post facto approvals, and dilution of public consultation requirements have narrowed spaces for environmental democracy. Judicial reluctance to strongly intervene in these policy shifts has contributed to a normalisation of regulatory dilution.
The NGT itself has faced institutional constraints, including vacancies, jurisdictional overlaps, and frequent appeals that stay or overturn its orders. This has reduced its ability to function as an independent ecological watchdog, transforming it, at times, into a procedural rather than substantive forum.
Reimagining Balance Between Ecology and Economy
It would be inaccurate, however, to claim that India’s environmental jurisprudence has entirely collapsed. Courts continue to intervene in cases of gross ecological negligence, urban air pollution, and waste management failures. Recent judicial directions on solid waste segregation, river rejuvenation, and air quality management reflect ongoing concern for environmental governance.
The challenge lies not in choosing between development and environment, but in reaffirming that sustainable development is a constitutional obligation, not a policy choice. True development cannot be achieved by postponing ecological costs or externalising environmental damage to vulnerable communities. The judiciary’s role is not to stall growth, but to ensure that growth remains lawful, transparent, and ecologically responsible.
Conclusion
Reinvigorating India’s environmental jurisprudence requires a renewed commitment to scientific decision-making, meaningful public participation, and strict enforcement of environmental norms. Courts must move beyond procedural compliance and re-embrace substantive environmental justice, especially in the context of climate change, biodiversity loss, and increasing disaster vulnerability.
Ultimately, the strength of India’s environmental jurisprudence will determine whether the Constitution remains a living document capable of protecting not just citizens, but the ecological foundations of the nation itself. The fading of environmental jurisprudence is not inevitable; it is a choice, and like all choices, it can be corrected through constitutional courage and institutional resolve.
Download Pdf
Get in Touch
