Supreme Court extends environmental duties to corporate sector

The recent SC judgment emphasises that CSR environmental spending is a constitutional obligation, not voluntary charity

Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India mandates a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. On December 19, 2025, in M K Ranjitsinh v Union of India, the Supreme Court extended this duty to corporate entities while addressing the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), thereby incorporating environmental responsibility into corporate social responsibility (CSR). This interpretation has important implications for corporate accountability and environmental governance in the country.

In 2019, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking interventions for the protection of GIB and Lesser Florican in Rajasthan and Gujarat, from threats to these species and their habitats attributed to overhead energy transmission lines, and for directions to appoint an expert committee to oversee the implementation of the court’s orders.

In an interim order in 2021, the Supreme Court imposed restrictions on the installation of overhead transmission lines over an area of about 99,000 sq km and appointed a three‑member committee to assess the feasibility of transitioning to high‑voltage underground power lines. The order also required the installation of bird diverters on existing overhead lines in priority bustard habitat areas until a final decision on undergrounding could be made.

In its 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court revisited and modified its 2021 order to better balance species conservation with India’s climate and energy transition goals, and appointed an expert committee to determine how to achieve this balance between environmental protection and sustainable development. The 2025 judgment discusses the expert committee’s report and clarifies how to reconcile species conservation with climate commitments pursued through renewable energy sources.

The Great Indian Bustard Case and the discussions on balancing our commitments to species protection and addressing climate change impacts led to the judicial contribution of deriving a rights-based approach to climate change. The right against the adverse effects of climate change has been recognised as a distinct constitutional right, grounded in the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Reading climate change into the rights to life and equality and recognising a distinct ‘right against the adverse effects of climate change’ brought several key issues into mainstream discussion. It highlighted how inequitable distribution of climate impacts and the inability of many communities to adapt to these threats can violate their constitutional rights to life and equality.

With the right to a clean environment recognised as a fundamental right, the State has a duty to protect, respect and fulfil this right. The court interpreted this duty to require the State to adopt effective measures to mitigate climate change and to ensure that all individuals have the capacity to adapt to the climate crisis.

A closer reading of the 2024 judgment shows the priority it attached to India’s climate change mitigation efforts by emphasising the transition to cleaner, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

The current 2025 judgment extends this focus on energy goals by framing it within a duty‑based approach to balance environmental protection with sustainable development.

This duty flows from the constitutional mandate and is not charity for the people or the environment. By viewing it through a Constitutional lens, the court expanded the ambit of corporate liability and accountability towards environmental stewardship.

Statutory obligation

By interpreting ‘a citizen’ under Article 51A(g) to include legal persons such as companies, the court sought to elevate the corporate sector’s statutory responsibility under the Companies Act, 2013 into a constitutional mandate. Under Section 135 of the Act, companies meeting specified financial thresholds must spend on socially responsible activities, including environmental sustainability and ecological balance.

This statutory obligation reflects the principle that the industrial and corporate sector owes social obligations to communities for distributive justice. The court reinforced this by holding that social responsibility includes a firm commitment to environmental protection. It expanded two key aspects: first, by interpreting ‘community’ to include the natural world and recognising the link between human activities and planetary health; and second, by treating ecological protection as part of social responsibility, underscoring ecological justice and the idea of holding natural resources in ‘public trust’ for present and future generations.

Through these observations, the court affirmed that the CSR mandate is not charity to the community or the environment; it is a statutory obligation grounded in constitutional commitment.

Many challenges 

Given the ongoing debates over air pollution in Delhi and the responsibility of both State and non‑State actors for climate change impacts, the Supreme Court’s ruling on corporate environmental responsibility is particularly timely.

This expansive interpretation of corporate social responsibility to include environmental obligations strengthens the case for corporate accountability for environmental harm.

Fundamental rights jurisprudence in India has traditionally been State‑centric, with individuals able to sue the State only for violations of fundamental rights. Likewise, the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) was limited to citizens, restricting this duty to human beings. With the current judgment, the court is now setting a new trend with two key aspects: first, by expanding the meaning of ‘citizen’ under Article 51A(g) to include legal persons in the ambit of the duty towards the environment; and second, by bringing the industry and corporate sector within the constitutional mandate to protect and conserve nature.

Bringing environmental responsibility into corporate social responsibility expands the corporate sector’s accountability to include broader societal, statutory and constitutional goals of environmental protection. It reinforces environmental duties not just under existing environmental laws but also within corporate regulatory frameworks.

Recognising a rights‑based approach and corporate environmental responsibility broadens the scope for attributing climate responsibility to the industrial sector. This could lead to novel climate litigation against polluting industries, distinct from the traditional focus on litigation against the State.

However, this development is not without challenges and ambiguities. Although corporate environmental responsibility has been read into CSR, its scope is limited to companies that are statutorily required to spend CSR funds. It remains unclear how environmental responsibility could be extended to companies outside the CSR mandate, especially small and marginal sector units that also contribute to environmental harm. These smaller units, which often lack the financial and technical capacity to adopt cleaner technologies, could exacerbate the concerns of climate change and its consequent impacts.

What is the extent and scope of environmental responsibility under the CSR mandate for these companies? Given that the Court has not attempted to explain this in the judgment, ambiguities in interpretation are likely to result.

Incorporating CSR funds into the National Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) fund could bring more resources to environmental conservation. However, it could also become a licence for polluting industries to pay the amount and escape further responsibility for the harm they cause. While this integration might appear to strengthen the polluter‑pays principle, it also allows companies to fulfil their obligations by paying into a central fund and shift the responsibility for adopting direct measures for environmental protection and conservation to the State.

The State is now placed at the centre of responsibility for environmental protection, mitigating climate change impacts and ensuring a cleaner environment for all. This could weaken corporate accountability and responsibility towards the environment and the earth. To address these ambiguities and implementation challenges, the court needs to provide further clarification through its judicial activism.

(Gayathri D Naik is Assistant Professor and Co-Director, Centre for Environmental Law Education, Research and Advocacy, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru)