Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that environmental protection does not offer the kind of political dividends associated with subsidies, jobs or identity politics and, therefore, citizens and courts must take up the cause of protecting the environment.
Justice Bhuyan made the observations while delivering a keynote lecture on “Development and Sustainability”, where he extensively discussed the evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India and the relationship between ecology and development.
Justice Bhuyan said the emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) gave a major boost to environmental jurisprudence in India.
He noted that although India had a statutory framework through laws such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it was the Bhopal gas leak tragedy of 1984 that galvanised the Supreme Court into developing environmental principles.
According to Justice Bhuyan, the Supreme Court, through a series of judgments, developed and applied internationally recognised environmental principles to the Indian context. The right to a pollution-free environment has consequently become part of Indian constitutional jurisprudence and is recognised as a fundamental right traceable to Article 21.
Referring to Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, Justice Bhuyan highlighted the doctrine of absolute liability, under which an enterprise engaged in inherently hazardous or dangerous activities is liable to compensate persons affected by an accident arising from such activity.
He also discussed the polluter pays principle, referring to the decision in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India.
The principle requires the person or enterprise responsible for pollution to bear the financial cost of remedying the environmental damage, rather than shifting the burden onto the government and, ultimately, taxpayers.
Justice Bhuyan stressed the importance of the precautionary principle, referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India.
He explained that the principle requires the State to anticipate, prevent and address the causes of environmental degradation.
Referring to his dissenting judgment in Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, he described the precautionary principle as the “cornerstone” of environmental jurisprudence.
He observed that the polluter pays principle is essentially a principle of reparation, whereas the precautionary principle seeks to prevent environmental harm in the first place.
“If at all there has to be a grading of the environmental principles,” Justice Bhuyan said, the precautionary principle must be placed above the polluter pays principle.
Justice Bhuyan said the concept of sustainable development requires a balance between development and environmental protection.
Referring again to the Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum judgment, he said industrial development and environmental protection cannot be treated as competing objectives.
Sustainable development, he explained, is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
He emphasised that the concept has become an important part of environmental jurisprudence and customary international law.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, popularly known as the Span Motel case, in which the Supreme Court developed and applied the public trust doctrine.
The doctrine recognises that resources such as air, rivers and forests are of such importance to society that they should not be treated as subjects of private ownership or commercial exploitation.
The State has a duty to protect such resources for the benefit of the public, he said.
The judgment also highlighted inter-generational equity, under which the present generation has a responsibility to manage natural resources sustainably so that future generations can enjoy them.
Justice Bhuyan said humanity should view itself not as the owner of the earth but as its custodian, with a responsibility to pass it on to future generations in a condition comparable to that inherited from previous generations.
Justice Bhuyan acknowledged the significant role played by the Supreme Court in developing India's environmental jurisprudence but said judicial decisions must also be subjected to critical examination.
Referring to former Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel's analysis of Supreme Court environmental decisions, he noted the criticism that while the Court has generally supported environmental challenges brought by NGOs, its approach has been less consistent in cases involving challenges to infrastructure projects.
Justice Bhuyan said such criticism should be welcomed as part of academic and constitutional discourse.
He emphasised that criticism of a judgment does not amount to criticism of a judge, and said universities and centres of higher learning must critically examine judgments and legal issues if they are to compete with global institutions.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2026, prepared by Yale and Columbia universities.
According to the report cited by him, India ranks 176th among 177 countries, ahead of only Laos.
He pointed to the reported negative score of -3.92 for tree cover loss in key biodiversity areas.
Justice Bhuyan clarified that he was not suggesting that the EPI should be accepted as “gospel truth”, but said it should serve as a starting point for serious study and debate concerning India's environmental situation.
Justice Bhuyan rejected the idea that environmental protection and development are inherently contradictory.
He referred to the Supreme Court's observation in the Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case that the traditional notion that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.
Referring to his Vanashakti judgment, he said it is unfortunate that a false binary is being created between environment and development.
According to Justice Bhuyan, ecology and development are not adversaries but are both integral to the constitutional concept of sustainable development.
He stressed that there can be no genuine development based on destruction of the environment for immediate gains.
“True development,” he said, is development that improves people's quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
He called for a new paradigm of development that is sustainable, inclusive and respectful of the environment.
Justice Bhuyan ultimately observed that environmental degradation does not generate the same political incentives as issues such as subsidies, employment or identity politics.
As a result, environmental concerns often do not receive sufficient political priority.
It is therefore, he said, for citizens and courts to take up environmental issues and ensure that constitutional and legal protections are meaningfully implemented.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy