Speaking at the UN Climate Conference (COP-30) in Belém, Brazil, on November 13, Supreme Court Judge Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said that India’s environmental jurisprudence has witnessed a profound transformation. He explained that over several decades, the Court has shifted from treating nature as a resource meant for human use to viewing it as an entity with inherent worth, deserving protection for its own sake. This doctrinal shift, he observed, parallels India’s broader developmental trajectory.
Justice Singh opened his address by recalling India’s deep-rooted ecological wisdom found in Vedic literature, traditional water-management practices, and scientific systems like Vriksha Ayurveda. This long-standing ethos, he said, treated the environment as a sacred responsibility. However, this balance was destabilised under colonial rule, which brought massive deforestation, monoculture plantations, environmental degradation, and the undermining of community rights.
Post-Independence Evolution
Justice Singh noted that in the initial decades after Independence, the Supreme Court’s priorities lay in fundamental rights protection, land reforms, and institutional consolidation. Environmental issues surfaced largely in the form of public nuisance cases. A major turning point arrived after India’s participation in the 1972 Stockholm Conference, which inspired the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, introducing Articles 48A and 51A(g)—the constitutional bedrock of contemporary environmental governance.
He highlighted the transformative role of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). By relaxing locus standi and integrating environmental concerns within Article 21, the Court expanded the meaning of the right to life to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Rise of Modern Environmental Principles
Justice Singh traced the evolution of liability and accountability through landmark cases. The aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, he said, led to the formulation of the doctrine of absolute liability, marking a decisive shift from the British rule of strict liability.
He recalled the Court’s adoption of critical principles such as:
• Polluter Pays Principle
• Precautionary Principle
• Inter-generational Equity
Citing judgments like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, Goa Foundation, Kamal Nath, and Ganesh Wood Products, he underlined how these decisions entrenched these principles in India’s legal framework.
Justice Singh also praised the judiciary’s use of amicus curiae, court-appointed commissioners, and collaboration with scientific bodies, ensuring that judicial outcomes are grounded in ecological and technical expertise.
Sustainable Development as Constitutional Anchor
Turning to present-day constitutional interpretation, Justice Singh said the Supreme Court seeks to harmonise environmental protection with national infrastructure imperatives. Sustainable development, he stated, is the constitutional guiding force in reconciling environmental concerns with economic growth.
He stressed that sustainability does not reject progress; rather, it demands that development internalise environmental costs and uphold the interests of both current and future generations.
Judicial Innovation, Restraint & Constitutional Boundaries
Addressing accusations of judicial overreach, Justice Singh acknowledged that the Court has occasionally stepped in to bridge legislative gaps in order to protect fundamental rights—especially where no statutory safeguards existed. He referenced the Vishaka judgment as a classic example of judicial norm-setting inspired by international law.
At the same time, he insisted that the Court remains conscious of its institutional limits, especially in domains requiring scientific expertise. The judiciary, he said, frequently relies on specialised committees and expert bodies to maintain informed, workable decision-making.
He argued that while some may label the Court’s role as activist, it is legitimised by the public’s enduring trust in the judiciary as the custodian of the Constitution. He emphasised that the Court has never functioned as a “runaway” institution; it has set its own limits and acted with prudence, dignity, and independence.
Quoting his own words, he said that although traditionalists may perceive this as judicial overreach, the Court’s proactive role has become “a unique aspect of our jurisprudential identity.” This legitimacy, he added, arises from the people’s expectations that the Court will intervene where vital legal or constitutional gaps threaten fundamental values. Ultimately, he said, judicial maturity and self-restraint have ensured that the Court does not behave like a “knight in shining armour gone astray.”
Future: Balancing Climate Obligations & Development
Looking ahead, Justice Singh said the Supreme Court will continue to grapple with two major challenges: the climate emergency and biodiversity protection amid rapid infrastructure expansion. He cautioned that India’s transition towards an eco-centric model will remain complex and uneven, given the nation’s status as a developing economy that must maintain space for growth and innovation.
Drawing on the ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, he affirmed that India accepts its global environmental responsibilities while insisting that developmental rights must be preserved. This, he said, aligns with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which acknowledges unequal contributions and unequal capacities among nations in the climate crisis.
Justice Singh concluded that the Supreme Court will uphold environmental rights with a commitment to sustainability, scientific evidence, and carefully calibrated judicial restraint.
