At UN Climate Conference In Brazil, Justice NK Singh Speaks Of Supreme Court's Environmental Jurisprudence

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court, speaking at the United Nations Climate Conference (COP-30) at Belém, Brazil, on November 13, said that the Court's environmental jurisprudence has undergone a significant shift over several decades. He stated that the judiciary has gradually moved from seeing nature primarily as a resource for human benefit to recognising it as possessing intrinsic value that is worthy of protection. This evolution, he noted, has mirrored India's own developmental journey.

Justice Singh began by referring to India's ancient ecological consciousness, rooted in Vedic texts, traditional watershed systems, and scientific practices such as Vriksha Ayurveda. He described this heritage as one that treated nature as a sacred trust. He then noted that this equilibrium was disrupted by colonial interventions that caused large-scale deforestation, monocultures, ecological imbalance, and erosion of community rights.

Post-Independence Transition

Justice Singh said that in the early post-Independence decades, the Supreme Court focused on fundamental rights, agrarian reforms, and establishing the rule of law. Environmental concerns were addressed largely as issues of public nuisance. The turning point came after India's participation in the 1972 Stockholm Conference. This led to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment inserting Articles 48A and 51A(g), which laid the foundation for modern environmental governance.

He emphasised the transformative impact of Public Interest Litigation. By liberalising locus standi and placing environmental issues within the scope of Article 21, the Court recognised the right to live in a healthy environment as an integral part of the right to life.

Expansion of Environmental Principles

Justice Singh recalled the judicial response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which triggered the adoption of the principle of absolute liability in place of the English rule of strict liability. This, he said, was a defining moment that signified India's shift to stronger environmental accountability.

He noted the later adoption of the Polluter Pays Principle, the Precautionary Principle, and the principle of Inter-generational Equity. He referred to judgments such as Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, Goa Foundation, Kamal Nath, and Ganesh Wood Products as significant milestones that institutionalised these principles.

Justice Singh also highlighted the Court's innovative use of tools like amicus curiae, court-appointed commissioners, and engagement with expert bodies to ensure that judicial decisions are informed by scientific and ecological realities.

Sustainable Development as the Constitutional Touchstone

Focusing on the present constitutional framework, Justice Singh said that the Court today seeks to balance ecological protection with national development and infrastructure needs. He explained that the idea of sustainable development is the guiding framework for this balance. He added that the Court's interventions reflect an intent to reconcile two essential public interests: environmental preservation and economic advancement.

According to him, sustainable development does not oppose growth. Instead, it requires that development be pursued responsibly, with the environmental cost fully internalised and with due regard to present and future generations.

Judicial Creativity, Restraint and Institutional Boundaries

Justice Singh addressed concerns about judicial overreach by acknowledging that the Court has sometimes filled legislative gaps to protect constitutional rights, especially in areas where no statutory framework existed. He cited the Vishaka judgment as a notable example of interim judicial law-making inspired by international conventions.

However, he emphasised that the judiciary has consistently been guided by restraint, especially in matters requiring specialised scientific expertise. The Court, he said, is aware of its institutional limitations and often relies on expert bodies to ensure that decisions are informed and workable.

He said that while some may view this proactive role as a departure from traditional separation of powers, it has been validated by the widespread public confidence in the Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.

Justice Singh observed that the Supreme Court has never acted as an unbounded activist institution. Instead, he said it has drawn its own boundaries and shown maturity and independence in upholding constitutional values. This balance between creativity and restraint, he argued, is what has sustained the Court's credibility over the decades.

"While to a traditionalist it any appear to be a judicial overreach, this however, has become a unique facet of our jurisprudential reality. This proactive role however, has been vindicated by the enormous confidence reposed on the Court by the people of the country as the ultimate guarantor, upholder of the rule of law and the Constitution, and thus the expectation of the people from the Court to fill in the critical gaps affecting the fundamental and cores legal and Constitutional areas gives the legitimacy to the Court to rule on areas which are considered traditionally belonging to other organs of the State. However, what had been the true source of sustenance of this role of the Court is the wisdom and maturity shown by the Courts in drawing its own boundary and fierce independence shown in upholding the Constitional values. The Courts have not acted like a knight in a shining armour going amok recklessly," he said.

Looking to the future, Justice Singh said the Supreme Court will continue to confront two major challenges: the climate crisis and the protection of biodiversity amid expanding infrastructure. He cautioned that the journey toward an eco-centric approach will never be linear. India's status as a developing nation requires a continuous balancing exercise between environmental imperatives and socio-economic priorities.

Invoking the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, he said India embraces its responsibility to the planet but must also retain the space to grow, innovate, and rise. This, he noted, aligns with the global principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which recognises that nations contribute differently to climate change and possess differing capacities to respond.

Justice Singh concluded that the Court will continue to uphold environmental rights within the constitutional framework, guided by sustainability, scientific input, and institutional self-restraint.