Paying homage to Justice Satya Brata Sinha, Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Saturday said Justice Sinha argued that in a constitutional democracy such as India, the courts must step in through principled interpretation to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law when governance failures threaten constitutional guarantees.
Delivering the 4th Endowment Lecture in honour of Justice Sinha, at the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) in Ranchi, Justice Nagarathna said such a reading showed that Justice Sinha recognized the judiciary, not merely as an adjudicatory body, but as an institution capable of guiding the constitutional order when other branches fall short.
The lecture, titled Environmental Justice and Climate Change: How courts can lead the way forward, traced the constitutional evolution of environmental law in India. Although the 1950 Constitution did not explicitly refer to the environment, its spirit gradually expanded through the introduction of Articles 48A and 51A(g) in 1976. These provisions imposed duties on both the State and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment. Over time, the Supreme Court, through landmark judgments such as MC Mehta v. Kamalnath, Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, TN Godavarman v. Union of India, Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, and MK Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
In doing so, the judiciary developed foundational principles of environmental law. These include sustainable development, the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, the public trust doctrine, and intergenerational equity. These principles, reflected in statutory frameworks such as the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, have become central to environmental governance. For instance, in Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India and Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, the polluter pays principle was reinforced, while the precautionary principle found detailed articulation in AP Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu and subsequent cases.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that environmental justice must be viewed within a broader framework of justice. Environmental harms are unevenly distributed, often affecting marginalized communities more severely. Therefore, environmental protection must be pursued alongside equity, fairness, and democratic participation. Procedural dimensions such as transparency, access to information, and inclusion in decision-making processes are essential to achieving meaningful justice.
The lecture further examined the implications of integrating environmental justice with broader constitutional values. It highlighted the importance of aligning climate action with development and equity, as reflected in international instruments such as the Paris Agreement. It also rejected the artificial separation between humans and nature, emphasizing that “humans are a part of nature, not apart from it.” Legislative frameworks such as the National Forest Policy, 1988, and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, were cited as examples of this integrated approach.
Justice Nagarathna noted that measures intended to improve efficiency, such as road expansion, may paradoxically lead to increased consumption and environmental harm. Similarly, the notion of “natural disasters” was examined critically, with emphasis on how human actions often exacerbate ecological vulnerabilities, as seen in urban flooding in cities like Bengaluru.
Turning to judicial leadership, the lecture underscored the need for courts to adopt innovative and context-sensitive approaches. Environmental law, described as “hot law” by Professor Elizabeth Fisher, operates in conditions of uncertainty and evolving scientific knowledge. In such a context, courts must go beyond traditional adjudication and engage in forward-looking, precautionary reasoning.
Justice Nagarathna identified three guiding principles for judicial leadership. First, decisions must be context-sensitive, as illustrated by the evolution of the doctrine of absolute liability in MC Mehta v. Union of India following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the settlement in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India. Second, courts must engage in principled balancing of competing interests, recognizing that environmental law principles are not static. Third, there may be circumstances where balancing is insufficient, and certain ecologically fragile areas must be declared inviolable, particularly in cases involving biodiversity hotspots and eco-sensitive zones.
The judge also addressed the role of corporate actors in environmental governance. “Profit should not be allowed to pretend it stands alone,” she reminded captains of industry. Through mechanisms such as Corporate Social Responsibility under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, the law recognizes that economic activity carries inherent social and environmental obligations. This is especially relevant in resource-intensive sectors such as mining and infrastructure, where environmental and social impacts are significant and often irreversible.
Drawing inspiration from the legacy of Justice Sinha, she emphasized that courts must remain vigilant in protecting both present and future generations. Environmental justice, in this sense, is not only a legal imperative but a moral demand that the present generation act as trustees of the Earth for those yet to come.
The lecture was delivered in the presence of Jharkhand High Court Chief Justice MS Sonak, also the Chancellor of NUSRL, Ranchi, brother and sister judges of the High Court, NUSRL Vice-Chancellor Prof (Dr) Ashok R. Patil, members of the faculty, researchers, students, and invitees.
Read full speech text: