Click the Play button to listen to article

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said today that the Supreme Court is like a Banyan tree for environmental justice because its roots are deep in the civilisation's ethos, while its branches shelter the rights of unseen generations, as reflected through the medium of the Indian Constitution.

He stated that while India holds eternal reverence for Mother Nature and the Constitution reflects that profound tapestry, the words of the Constitution are merely seeds which need judicial wisdom to sprout to life. That is why the various judgments and attempts by the Supreme Court to protect environmental justice hold immense value.

"The Constitution of India is therefore not a mere political charter; it is the moral covenant with past, present, and future generations. Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment; Article 50A calls upon every citizen to guard the natural world like a sacred flame. Here the words of the Constitution are seeds; they need the nurturing water of judicial wisdom to sprout into life. Here, the Supreme Court of India is called as the Banyan tree of environmental justice, with roots deep in our civilisation's ethos and branches sheltering the rights of unseen generations."

CJI Kant was speaking at the inauguration of the International Conference on 'The Future of Environment and Climate Dynamics' in New Delhi. The inauguration also saw Prime Minister Narendra Modi in attendance.

 

He reminded the audience that the Supreme Court, over decades, has championed the idea that progress in environmental justice without preservation is a mirage that will lead to ecological ruin. He pointed out that the efforts began in the 1980s, when the Supreme Court held that a citizen's right to basic sanitation couldn't be subordinated to the municipality's financial limitations and administrative convenience, as held by Municipal Council, Ratlam v Vardhichand(1980).

In 1991, the Supreme Court read the right to a pollution-free environment into Article 21, thereby elevating it to the status of a fundamental right. Subsequently, in 1996, the Court imported the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle into its jurisdiction from global environmental jurisprudence. In the same year, it established the doctrine of absolute liability for environmental harm. 

Subsequently, the Supreme Court also recognised the public trust doctrine, holding that forest, rivers are held by the State in trust for the benefit of public at larger and not because its owned by the State outright. 

"The same pattern has continued till date, where the Supreme Court has recently articulated the idea of eco-centric proportionality, postulating that environmental protection must be rigorous and yet intelligent enough to engage with the world as it exists. This notion has advanced a paradigm shift by permitting development solely in conjunction with enforceable conditions, expert oversight, restoration, compensatory afforestation, and accountability."

CJI Kant said that with the advancement of environmental jurisprudence, the Supreme Court no longer has to deal with either conservation or development because it has harmonised two competing interests. 

He also spoke on the growing importance of climate change-induced rights, which raises sharper constitutional questions on the implications of fundamental rights to equality, livelihood, health and conditions that are necessary for a meaningful environment for these rights to sustain.

In this context, he emphasised that it's important to understand cumulative ecological harm, especially because climate-related disputes involve multiple across across multiple jurisdictions. For instance, he referred to certain global judicial jurisprudence, such as Nepal recognising environmental protection as part of the right to life. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, connects sustainable development with finite natural resources and environmental responsibilities. Likewise, the South African Constitution develops sustainable development as a framework through which environmental protection and eco-economic development can be reconciled. 

He also spoke out about how Brazil's Supreme Federal Court has gone further in addressing not merely individual environmental injuries but governmental omissions and the functionienvironmentalmental policy itself. Similar attempts have also been made by Chile, Russia, and Armenia.

It is in this context, CJI Kant said: "Climate adjudication must therefore look beyond the immediate proposal and examine the larger ecological system of which that project forms a part. The challenges are more demanding; the energy transition will require new infrastructure, technology and patterns of land and resources. Cities will have to reconcile mobility, housing, and economic activity with air quality, water security, and ecological resilience."

CJI Kant supported the idea that comparative environmental jurisprudence should not become an exercise of mere transplanation but it should be an exercise in dialogue where Courts around the world should endeavour to highlight that the tide of justice can't flow in isolation, it needs to draw strength from the tributaries of collective will, scientific wisdom and international cooperation.

"Our courts must become the bridge between the sagacity of our ancestors and the aspirations of our descendants, ensuring that the river of progress does not run red with the silt of destruction, through the rocky terrains of inaction and indifference. As we embark on this conference, let us together ensure that this river of responsibility never runs dry, and that it continues to flow strong and clear for generations to come."


Tags: