The Supreme Court’s Environmental Jurisprudence in India

The Supreme Court made the Constitution India’s strongest environmental law. Article 21’s right to life now includes a right to a clean environment. This article walks through the landmark rulings that built that right.

1Chapter 1: A Right Read into Article 21

Must Know

Why the Court read it in

• The Constitution does not expressly guarantee a clean environment.
• So the Supreme Court read it into Article 21’s right to life and personal liberty.
• Because Article 21 is worded broadly, judges stretched “life” to include the conditions that make life livable.
• A polluted river or toxic air thus becomes a violation of a fundamental right.
• Citizens can challenge pollution as a rights violation, not merely a policy preference.

The PIL gateway

• Articles 32 and 226 let citizens file public interest litigation (PIL) directly before the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• The Court relaxed the rule that only the affected person can sue.
• A letter or newspaper report can be treated as a PIL.
• So a victim need not hire a lawyer to file a formal writ.
• This lowered the cost of environmental justice for the poor.

Absolute liability: Oleum gas leak, 1987

• The Oleum gas leak at Delhi’s Shriram plant led to M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987).
• The Court laid down absolute liability.
• An enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is liable for any harm, with no defences.
• Unlike the older strict liability rule, there is no exception for an act of God or a third party.
• The harm is irreversible and the enterprise profits from the risk, so it bears the full cost regardless of care.

Vellore, 1996

• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) shaped Indian environmental law.
• The Court accepted the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle.
• Together they move the burden from victims to polluters, and from proof to prevention.

2Chapter 2: The Three Pillars

Good to Know

The precautionary principle

• The principle requires anticipating, preventing and attacking pollution before it occurs.
• Where a threat is serious or irreversible, the burden shifts to the polluter to prove the activity is safe.
• Vellore held that lack of scientific certainty is no reason to delay action.
• So regulators can stop a project on the risk of harm alone.

The polluter-pays principle

• The polluter must pay for the harm caused to victims.
• Compensation also covers the cost of restoring the degraded environment.
• This prices in the damage, discourages pollution, and keeps the public purse from paying the cleanup.

Sustainable development

• Vellore made sustainable development an integral part of the law of the land.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India applied it, balancing development against displacement of affected people.
• Courts weigh a project’s benefit against its environmental and social cost.
• Development is no longer an absolute priority.

The public trust doctrine

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) brought the public trust doctrine into Indian law.
• The State holds rivers, forests and air in trust for the public.
• It cannot transfer or use them in ways that harm the public interest.
• This stops the government from giving away public resources for private profit.
• See Article 48A of the Constitution.

Try a chain

• Practise with the 5-question chain on environmental jurisprudence.

3Chapter 3: Landmark Cases and Critiques

Great to Know

Ganga and Taj

• The Ganga case (1988) ordered Kanpur tanneries closed for polluting the river.
• The Taj Trapezium case (1996) protected the Taj Mahal from pollution around it.
• Both became templates for court-driven environmental protection through PIL.

Mining curbed

• The Aravalli case (2004) banned mining in the Aravalli hills to protect the fragile ecology.
• Lafarge (2011) made mining approvals face strict environmental scrutiny.
• The Niyamgiri case (2013) required the consent of the local tribal gram sabha before mining.
• Environmental and community consent can now override a mining licence.

Judicial overreach?

• Critics say the Court now sets environmental policy.
• Orders on CNG conversion and construction bans are seen to cross into executive territory.
• Some argue judges lack the technical data for complex trade-offs.
• Defenders say the executive’s inaction leaves courts no choice.
• See Judicial Activism in India and Separation of Powers and Judicial Review.

Enforcement gaps

• Verdicts often outrun implementation.
• Monitoring machinery is thin and understaffed.
• Rivers and air remain polluted despite directions.
• Without a strong watchdog and timelines, orders lose force.

The NGT overlap

• The National Green Tribunal Act (2010) created a specialised environmental forum.
• Jurisdiction now overlaps with the Supreme Court, High Courts and the NGT.
• This can lead to conflicting orders and forum-shopping.
• The NGT should handle technical cases while courts keep constitutional oversight.
• See The National Green Tribunal.

Recent directions, 2018 to 2024

• The Court has monitored Delhi’s air for years, ordering construction bans and firecracker curbs.
• It has sought action on stubble burning and vehicle pollution.
• It uses expert panels and ongoing hearings to track compliance, not just one-off orders.

4Chapter 4: Past Papers

Exam Point of View

UPSC PYQ status

• Environmental jurisprudence is tested via GS-II and GS-III, where the judiciary and environment overlap.
• Questions often ask about the three doctrines (precautionary, polluter-pays, public trust) and key judgments.
• Frame answers around the Article 21 reading-in, the three doctrines and the PIL gateway.

5Chapter 5: Climate and the Courts

Current Affairs

A climate right, 2024

• In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (April 2024), the Supreme Court read a right against the adverse effects of climate change into Articles 14 and 21.
• This makes a stable climate a rights question, not only a policy one.
• Citizens can argue that government inaction on climate violates their fundamental rights.

Energy transition and wildlife

• The case arose from power lines threatening the Great Indian Bustard.
• The Court balanced the need for solar transmission against protecting an endangered species.
• Energy projects now face judicial scrutiny for their ecological footprint, not just cost.

EIA and climate litigation

• Climate impacts must now be weighed in project clearances and environmental impact assessments.
• A project can be challenged if its EIA ignored climate and cumulative impacts.
• Citizens gain a constitutional basis for climate litigation before courts and tribunals.
• This opens a wide door for climate-related PIL in India.

Quick Q&A

• Oleum case year? 1987.
• Vellore year? 1996.
• Kamal Nath year? 1997.
• Niyamgiri year? 2013.
• Climate right case? M.K. Ranjitsinh, 2024.