UPSC Mains
GS Paper II
Environmental Jurisprudence
SC’s Environmental Jurisprudence
From Union Carbide to today’s infrastructure exemptions — how consistent is the Supreme Court’s application of its own landmark environmental doctrines?
CATALYST EVENT
1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy
KEY AMENDMENT
42nd Amendment — Articles 48A & 51A(g)
FOUNDING DOCTRINE
Absolute Liability (Union Carbide Case)
📰
Context and Background
- India had no precise environmental policy at independence — the Constitution barely mentioned the environment. The 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment catalysed India’s environmental legislative framework.
- Parliament inserted Article 48A and Article 51A(g) into the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act.
- The Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984 galvanised the Supreme Court into developing robust environmental doctrines.
Landmark Doctrines Established by the Supreme Court
- Absolute Liability (Union Carbide vs Union of India): Enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activity are absolutely liable for harm without any exceptions.
- Polluter Pays Principle (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum): Introduced in India through Rio Summit 1982 principles and first applied by the SC in the Vellore Citizens case.
- Public Trust Doctrine (M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath): State holds natural resources in trust for citizens and cannot transfer them for private commercial use.
- Precautionary Principle (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum): State must anticipate, prevent and attack causes of environmental degradation before harm actually occurs.
- Inter-Generational Equity: The Supreme Court held the present generation has a duty to protect the environment for future generations.
⚠️
Growing Inconsistency in Environmental Adjudication
Infrastructure Exemptions
SC has provided disproportionate support to large infrastructure projects while rejecting non-governmental challenges.
Selective Scrutiny
Development projects appear to receive a different threshold of scrutiny than cases brought by environmental petitioners.
“Busybody” Label Risk
Courts have deprecated some environmental petitioners as “busybodies filing frivolous petitions,” discouraging legitimate challenges.
Established Principles Undermined
Decisions going against established environmental jurisprudence are not always challenged, creating inconsistent precedents.
Precautionary Principle Retreat
The precautionary principle is the cornerstone of international environmental law but its consistent application by courts is declining.
Courts have at times labelled genuine environmental petitioners “busybodies filing frivolous petitions” — a framing that risks chilling legitimate constitutional challenges to environmentally harmful projects.
🧭
Way Forward for Restoring Consistency
Principled Application
Courts must apply polluter pays and precautionary principles consistently to all projects regardless of size.
NGT Strengthening
Strengthen the National Green Tribunal’s independence, jurisdiction and capacity for technical environmental adjudication.
Sustainable Development Standard
All infrastructure projects must demonstrate compliance with sustainable development as a prerequisite — not an afterthought.
Vanashakti Standard
Reaffirm the Vanashakti judgment’s observation that environment and ecology are not opposed to development.
Citizen Access Protection
Protect the right of conscientious citizens to approach courts with genuine environmental grievances without being labelled busybodies.
Environment and development as complementary, not conflicting goals: sustainable development has become part of customary international law — environment and development are both part of the constitutional construct of sustainable development and must never be treated as opposed.
📰
Source: Indian Express
