SC as Banyan of Green Justice: CJI Calls for Inter Generational Constitutional Protection
At an international conference in New Delhi, the Chief Justice of India traced the evolution of India’s environmental jurisprudence and cautioned that development divorced from ecological responsibility could ultimately lead to irreversible ruin.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant has described the Supreme Court as a “banyan tree of environmental justice”, drawing attention to the judiciary’s role in protecting the environment, enforcing constitutional duties and safeguarding the rights of generations yet unborn.
“The Constitution of India is therefore not a mere political charter; it is a moral covenant with past, present and future generations. Its Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A calls upon every citizen to guard the natural world like a sacred flame. Yet, the words of a constitution are but seeds. They need the nurturing waters of judicial wisdom to sprout into life. And it is here that the Supreme Court of India has stood tall as the banyan tree of environmental justice, with roots deep in our civilisational ethos and branches sheltering the rights of unseen generations.”
Speaking at the inauguration of the international conference on “The Future of Environment and Climate Dynamics” in New Delhi, Justice Kant said that the roots of India’s environmental jurisprudence are deeply embedded in the country’s civilisational reverence for nature, while the branches of constitutional law continue to shelter the interests of present and future generations.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi was also present at the inaugural session.
Constitution as a Moral Covenant Across Generations
Justice Kant observed that the Indian Constitution must not be viewed merely as a political or administrative document. In his view, it represents a continuing moral commitment linking the past, the present and the future.
“The same pattern has carried us to the present day, where the Supreme Court has recently articulated the idea of ‘eco-centric proportionality’, postulating that environmental protection must be rigorous yet intelligent enough
to engage with the world as it exists. This notion has advanced the most pragmatic approach of permitting development solely in conjunction with enforceable conditions, expert oversight, restoration, compensatory afforestation, and accountability.”
Referring to the constitutional framework relating to environmental protection, the Chief Justice highlighted the State’s obligation under Article 48A to protect and improve the environment and the corresponding fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51A(g) to safeguard the natural world.
“Climate adjudication must therefore look beyond the immediate proposal and examine the larger ecological system of which that project forms a part. The challenges immediately ahead will be still more demanding. The energy transition will require new infrastructure, new technologies and new patterns of land and resource use. Cities will have to reconcile mobility, housing and economic activity with air quality, water security and ecological resilience. “
He likened constitutional provisions to seeds that require judicial interpretation and institutional commitment to grow into enforceable principles.
The Supreme Court, he said, has performed that role by transforming constitutional language into practical protections for clean surroundings, ecological balance, public health and intergenerational equity.
“The Constitution of India is not a mere political charter; it is a moral covenant with past, present and future generations,” Justice Kant said, emphasising that constitutional values must remain responsive to environmental challenges.
From Sanitation to the Right to a Pollution-Free Environment
Justice Kant recalled the significant stages through which Indian environmental law has developed over the past several decades.
He referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, where the Court made it clear that citizens could not be denied basic sanitation merely because a municipal body pleaded financial constraints or administrative difficulty.
The judgment established that public authorities cannot evade their legal responsibilities by relying upon inadequate resources when the health and dignity of citizens are at stake.
“Our courts must become the bridge between the sagacity of our ancestors and the aspirations of our descendants, ensuring that the river of progress does not run red with the silt of destruction, through the rocky terrains of inaction and indifference. As we embark on this conference, let us together ensure that this river of responsibility never runs dry, and that it continues to flow strong and clear for generations to come.”
The Chief Justice also referred to the Court’s recognition of the right to a pollution-free environment as part of the right to life under Article 21. This constitutional interpretation transformed environmental protection from a matter of policy preference into a fundamental rights concern.
Over time, the Supreme Court further incorporated internationally recognised principles into Indian environmental jurisprudence, including the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, the public trust doctrine and the doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous environmental harm.
These principles, Justice Kant noted, have enabled courts to hold industries and public authorities accountable for ecological damage and to ensure that environmental costs are not unfairly imposed upon communities and future generations.
Natural Resources Held in Public Trust
Justice Kant underscored the importance of the public trust doctrine, under which natural resources such as forests, rivers, lakes and other ecological assets are held by the State not as its private property, but in trust for the benefit of the public.
The doctrine imposes a constitutional and fiduciary responsibility upon governments.
Authorities are expected to protect natural resources from arbitrary exploitation and ensure that decisions affecting them are taken transparently, lawfully and in the larger public interest.
The principle also reinforces the idea that no generation, government or private entity has an unrestricted right to exhaust resources that are essential to the survival and well-being of others.
Environmental Protection and Development Must Coexist
The Chief Justice said that the Supreme Court’s environmental jurisprudence has moved beyond the simplistic question of choosing either conservation or development.
Instead, the Court has increasingly attempted to harmonise the two competing concerns by permitting development only when it is accompanied by enforceable safeguards, expert supervision, ecological restoration, compensatory afforestation and institutional accountability.
Justice Kant referred to the emerging concept of eco-centric proportionality, under which environmental protection must be rigorous but also sufficiently intelligent and context-sensitive to address the realities of modern society.
This approach, he explained, does not permit development to proceed unchecked. Rather, it requires every developmental activity to be evaluated in light of its ecological consequences, the availability of mitigation measures and the long-term interests of affected communities.
Climate Change Raises New Constitutional Questions
Justice Kant also spoke about the growing constitutional significance of climate change. Climate-related harm, he observed, has implications for several fundamental rights, including the rights to equality, livelihood, health and a dignified life.
The consequences of climate change are not confined to one individual, project or geographical boundary.
They often arise from cumulative ecological damage spread across jurisdictions and generations.
For that reason, climate adjudication cannot be limited to examining an isolated project in isolation.
Courts must consider the larger ecological system in which the project is situated and assess how individual decisions may contribute to broader environmental degradation.
“Climate adjudication must look beyond the immediate proposal and examine the larger ecological system of which that project forms a part,” Justice Kant said.
He pointed out that the transition towards cleaner energy would require new infrastructure, technologies and patterns of land use.
At the same time, cities would have to balance mobility, housing and economic activity with air quality, water security and ecological resilience.
Lessons from Comparative Environmental Jurisprudence
Justice Kant referred to developments in environmental law across various jurisdictions, noting that courts around the world are confronting similar questions concerning climate responsibility, sustainable development and governmental accountability.
He referred to judicial approaches in countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Brazil, where courts have examined environmental protection in the context of the right to life, finite natural resources, sustainable development and failures in governmental environmental policy.
He also noted that courts in countries including Chile, Russia and Armenia have contributed to the developing body of international environmental jurisprudence.
However, Justice Kant cautioned that comparative constitutional law must not become a mechanical exercise in transplanting foreign principles.
Judicial systems, he said, should engage in a meaningful dialogue, drawing upon international experience while remaining attentive to their own constitutional traditions, social realities and ecological circumstances.
A Collective Responsibility for the Future
The Chief Justice stressed that environmental justice cannot be secured by courts alone. It requires the combined efforts of legislatures, governments, scientific institutions, civil society, industry and citizens.
The judiciary, he suggested, must act as a bridge between the wisdom of previous generations and the legitimate aspirations of those yet to be born. Development must not be allowed to become a pathway to ecological destruction, nor can institutional inaction be permitted to deepen the climate crisis.
In a powerful closing message, Justice Kant invoked the imagery of a river of responsibility one that must continue to flow through collective will, scientific knowledge, international cooperation and constitutional commitment.
The central message of his address was unequivocal: environmental protection is not an obstacle to progress; it is a constitutional condition for meaningful and sustainable progress. Economic advancement that destroys the ecological foundations of life cannot be regarded as genuine development.
As the Supreme Court continues to shape India’s environmental law, its constitutional mandate remains anchored in a principle of enduring significance that the Earth’s natural wealth is held in trust, and that justice must extend beyond the living to those who will inherit the planet in the years to come.
