Representational image for environmental justice.
Credit: iStock Photo
Recent developments in the policy spaces and judicial decisions on environment-related matters raise concerns about our approach to environmental protection and development. In Karnataka, the government recently recalled its decision to acquire agricultural land for the proposed Aerocity project. At the same time, it has chosen to press ahead with the ambitious North-South Underground Vehicular Tunnel Project in Bengaluru, despite sustained protests over its impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, particularly in Lalbagh.
On the judicial front, while the Supreme Court revisited its earlier judgment on ex post facto environmental clearances, another Bench of the same court extended environmental responsibility to corporate social responsibility.
Together these developments invite reflection on a critical question: where does the environment truly fit within policy frameworks and judicial decisions? Is there a coherent attempt to strike a balance between environmental concerns and developmental needs, and if so, where is that balance being defined?
These questions assume significance in the two contexts. The first is legal—the constitutional right to a clean environment under Article 21, now expanded to include protection from adverse climate change. The second is environmental justice—the unequal and increasing impact of climate change across social and economic groups.
The right to a clean environment—covering air, water, sanitation, and freedom from adverse climate impacts—has been recognised as intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21. This recognition is largely the result of an activist judiciary that has read socio-economic rights, originally enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, into the domain of fundamental rights.
Judicial interventions have strengthened environmental protection through directions to establish institutions, statutory bodies, and monitoring mechanisms, including continuing mandamus and court-appointed committees, particularly in forest governance. The adoption of international environmental law principles into domestic jurisprudence has further reinforced this framework.
However, recent judgments from this otherwise proactive judiciary raise concerns about India’s approach to environmental protection. In CREDAI vs Vanashakti, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier ruling against ex post facto environmental clearances and restored the executive directions permitting their regularisation. This decision represents a setback for environmental jurisprudence.
The contrast with other recent rulings is stark. In Ranjitsinh vs Union of India, the Court reaffirmed the right against adverse climate change as a fundamental right, building on earlier decisions under the then CJI D Y Chandrachud. In Dec 2025, the SC extended environmental responsibility to the corporate sector by linking it to CSR.
Extending environmental responsibility to the corporate sector is an important step, as it expands the constitutional duty to protect the environment from citizens to legal entities. However, this approach risks being rendered ineffective if environmental violations are legitimised through ex post facto clearances. Such regularisation disproportionately benefits large corporate projects and undermines forest rights, land rights and the environmental rights of affected communities. Corporate environmental responsibility cannot be meaningful when compliance is optional and violations are regularised after the fact.
The question of where the environment fits within development policy becomes more urgent in light of accelerating climate change. Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is a reality. Its impacts are visible across regions in diverse ways, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Ranjitsinh.
Beyond spatial diversity, climate change carries a strong environmental justice dimension. Poorer and marginalised communities—the landless, the homeless, women and transgender persons—bear a disproportionate share of climate impacts despite contributing least to environmental degradation. These unequal burdens deepen existing social and economic divides. This reality raises a critical concern: when the right to a clean environment is constitutionally guaranteed, who truly benefits from it? Without conscious policy-making, the right may become a privilege solely of those with economic and social capital. Addressing this inequity requires a reorientation of environmental governance towards inclusion and fairness.
Development is inevitable in a growing nation, and the environment has long been used as a resource supporting that growth. But use must not lead to exploitation. A balance between development and environmental protection is necessary.
Urban congestion and pollution demand urgent solutions, yet infrastructure projects such as tunnel roads in green and ecologically sensitive spaces cannot provide solutions. Addressing root causes of urban congestion—through improved public transport and a transition to cleaner energy—offers more sustainable alternatives.
Developmental policies must therefore adopt a framework of just sustainability, one that integrates environmental protection with social and economic justice. Environmental measures will remain ineffective if underlying inequalities are ignored, especially since vulnerable communities are the least equipped to adapt to environmental changes or finance the transition to cleaner energy technologies without State support.
(The writer is assistant professor and co-director, Centre for Environmental Law Education, Research and Advocacy, NLSIU, Bengaluru)
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)