Trace the evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India. In recent years, has the judiciary diluted its role as the guardian of environmental rights in the recent years? Substantiate. (15M, 250 Words)

India’s environmental jurisprudence represents one of the most significant examples of judicial innovation, where courts expanded constitutional rights to address ecological degradation. By reading environmental protection into the Right to Life under Article 21, the judiciary emerged as a key institution balancing development with sustainability.

Evolution of India’s environmental jurisprudence:

1.    Constitutional Foundation: The Indian Constitution provides a robust ecological framework:

• Article 21: Interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
• Article 48A: Mandates the State to protect and improve the environment.
• Article 51A(g): Imposes a duty on citizens to safeguard nature.

Together, these provisions enabled courts to constitutionalise environmental protection.

2.   Judicial Activism and Doctrinal Expansion (1980s–1990s): The Supreme Court adopted an activist role to address regulatory failures:

• Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra (1988): Recognised environmental health as part of Article 21.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Introduced Absolute Liability for hazardous industries.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996): Embedded the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle into Indian law.
• T.N. Godavarman (1996): Expanded the definition of forests beyond statutory records.

This phase firmly established courts as custodians of ecological justice.

Judiciary as the guardian of environmental rights:

Thus judiciary,

1. Prioritised prevention over mitigation.
2. Applied Public Trust Doctrine, holding natural resources in trust for the people (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath).
3. Recognised inter-generational equity, protecting the rights of future generations.
4. Environmental protection was treated as a non-negotiable constitutional obligation.

Dilution in recent times:

1.    Shift in Judicial Philosophy: There is a visible transition from strict precaution to development-friendly balancing, where ecological risks are accepted based on mitigation assurances.

2.   Weakening of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):

• Judicial acceptance of post-facto environmental clearances undermines deterrence.
• Dilution of public hearings and sectoral exemptions reduces procedural safeguards.

3. Narrow Technical Interpretations: In recent Aravalli Hills cases, 2024–25, ecological protection was restricted using limited legal definitions, disregarding hydrological and biodiversity functions.

4.   Project-Centric Clearances:

• Char Dham Highway Project: Strategic considerations outweighed Himalayan fragility, resulting in landslides and river disturbances.
• Mangrove clearances in Mumbai: Compensatory plantations accepted despite loss of mature ecosystems.

Implications of Judicial retreat:

1. Erosion of Article 21’s environmental content.
2. Dilution of the Public Trust Doctrine, enabling commodification of nature.
3. Potential violation of Article 14, due to selective regulatory leniency.
4. Environmental protection becomes conditional, increasing long-term climate and disaster risks.

Way Forward:

1.    Re-anchoring Judicial Philosophy: Restore primacy of precaution, prevention, and inter-generational equity in judicial reasoning.

2.   Strengthening Environmental Impact Assessment: Prohibit routine post-facto clearances and ensure robust, participatory, and science-based EIAs.

3.   Reinforcing the Public Trust Doctrine: Treat forests, wetlands, coastlines, and biodiversity as inalienable public assets, not compensable commodities.

4.   Science-Based Environmental Thresholds: Judicial decisions must rely on ecological functionality, not narrow statutory definitions.

6.   Legislative Backing: Enact an umbrella Climate Change Law, as indicated in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, to guide courts and regulators.

Conclusion:

Environmental jurisprudence is the constitutional conscience of development. As held in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, natural resources are held in trust for the people and future generations. Sustainable development demands not judicial retreat but renewed constitutional vigilance.

‘+1’ Value Addition:

• Over 40% of India’s biodiversity hotspots lie outside protected areas, making judicial oversight critical.
• India has lost 30% of its natural wetlands since 1990, often due to regulatory dilution.
• European Court of Human Rights, 2024 upheld citizens’ climate lawsuit against governments signifying rights-based climate adjudication.
• India has lost 30% of natural ecosystems since 1990 as per the UNEP.

La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2026 preparation.

FOLLOW US ON:

◉ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam

◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS

◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/

GET IN TOUCH:

Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/

or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140

OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020

Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524,  Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081

Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040