The Supreme Court of India has taken an active role in environmental protection, often expanding constitutional interpretation to safeguard the environment. Key approaches: Constitutional basis • Linked environmental protection to Article 21 – Right to Life, holding that a clean and healthy environment is part of this right. • Used Articles 48A (Directive Principles) and 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties) to reinforce environmental duties of the State and citizens. Doctrines evolved • Polluter Pays Principle – The polluter must bear the cost of environmental damage. • Precautionary Principle – Prevent harm even if full scientific certainty is lacking. • Public Trust Doctrine – Natural resources are held by the State in trust for the public. • Sustainable Development – Development must balance ecological protection. Landmark interventions • Directed closure or relocation of polluting industries. • Ordered measures for air quality in Delhi, including conversion of public transport to CNG. • Protected forests, wetlands, and wildlife through continuing mandamus (monitoring cases over years). • Established the National Green Tribunal through recommendations and support. The Court has effectively acted as a constitutional guardian for environmental issues, especially when legislative or executive actions were inadequate.

Dear Client, Since the 1980s which saw the lack of a broad environmental legislative base the Supreme Court of India took on a very active role in developing the country’s environmental jurisprudence. Out of that void which legislative frameworks left behind the Court looked to the Constitution for solutions which in turn it used to put forth new legal precepts that protected the environment. Also it functioned as a policy maker in this space and as an enforcer of environmental rights. Key Principles and Doctrines The Supreme Court has widened the parameters of fundamental rights to include environmental protection. Article 21 (Right to Life): The Court has time and again held that the issue of a clean and healthy environment is a component of the basic right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. This has been a far reaching interpretation which also makes it the states’ responsibility to protect the environment. Article 14 (Right to Equality): The Court also reports that environmental justice is tied to the Right to Equality which in turn is violated when we see that environmental degradation affects marginalized communities. Public Trust Doctrine: In the field of international law we have the principle which is that the state acts as a trustee of natural resources (which include air, water, and forests) and is to protect them for the public’s use and enjoyment now and in the future. Absolute Liability: In the landmark Oleum Gas Leak case the Court put forth the doctrine of absolute liability which is that any enterprise in a hazardous or dangerous business has a non transferable duty to see that no damage is caused by its operations. Also this principle is more stringent than “strict liability” as it does not make allowance for any exceptions. Polluter Pays Principle: This which states that the polluter pays for the cost of environmental damage and remediation. Sustainable Development: The Court has stressed the issue of a balance between growth and environmental protection which they put forward the idea of sustainable development which is to say we meet present needs but also do not compromise what future generations will be able to use to meet their own. Landmark Judgments In a series of landmark cases the Court’s approach is seen to play out which in many instances were brought forward as Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by a single lawyer M.C. Mehta. The Court ordered the shutdown of in which were found out to be the main pollutants of the Ganga river’s water by means of toxic effluents. Also reported was that any business which is not able to afford a basic treatment plant should not exist. This was a turning point in judiciary\'s intervention which put forth that defense of unemployment is not an option a business has in case of pollution. The Court took note of a case it had brought up regarding pollution which is affecting the Taj Mahal. It ordered that industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone either adopt cleaner fuels (like natural gas) or relocate which in turn will prevent the monument from the yellowing which is a result of industrial emissions. This present case is a very serious one. The Court gave a large, dictionary type definition of the term "forest", which in turn protects all land that has forest characteristics which may not be classified as such. This judgment brought to light issues related to forests which then were monitored across the country. In what was a first of its kind decision the Supreme Court in a recent case recognized what is now a “right to a healthy environment” from which a person is free from the negative effects of climate change as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 20. This is a large step by the judiciary into the climate change arena which also puts the state at account for what it does (or does not do) regarding climate change. I hope this answers your questions but if it doesn’t please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Thank you!