DAW 6th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

DAW 6th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

Question

Examine the role of the judiciary in environmental protection with reference to the evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India. (250 Words, 15 Marks).

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction:

  • Briefly mention about role of Indian judiciary in ensuring environmental protection under various supreme court judgement.

Body: Focus on-

  • Constitutional provisions related to environmental protection.

  • Supreme Court judgement in this context

  • Ways to promote supreme court role in environment protection

Conclusion:

  • Conclude on the lines how Indian judiciary acted as cornerstone to promote sustainable development and environmental principles in India.

Introduction: Environmental jurisprudence refers to the body of judicial principles, doctrines, and interpretations developed to protect and improve the environment, regulate human interaction with natural resources, and ensure ecological sustainability. Body: Constitutional provisions that support Environmental Protection:

  • Article 21 (Right to Life): In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, free from pollution.

  • The judiciary has expansively interpreted “life” to mean more than mere animal existence.

  • Directive Principles of State Policy

  • Under Article 48A (Directive Principles), It is the duty of the State to protect and improve the environment.

  • Articles 39(b) and 47 have been read to emphasise equitable distribution of natural resources and protection of public health.

  • Under Article 51A (Fundamental Duties)- It is the duty of citizens to protect the environment

Core Environmental Doctrines that originated through various Judicial Pronouncements:

  • Principle of Absolute Liability

  • If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties

  • Unlike strict liability, there is No exceptions or defences, and liability is strict under all circumstances.

  • The Supreme Court of India formulated the absolute liability principle for harm caused by hazardous and inherently dangerous industries by re-interpreting the scope of the power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

  • The rule evolved in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India which is popularly known as the ‘Oleum gas leakage case.’

  • After the catastrophic accident of Oleum gas leak tragedy, Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was introduced to compensate the victims of the case where the hazardous substances or handling of the dangerous substance is involved.

  • Polluter Pay Principle:

  • The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) is a fundamental concept in environmental law and policy, asserting that those who cause pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment.

  • Introduced in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India judicial pronouncement, the supreme court held that the polluting industries are “absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to the villagers in the affected area.

  • In the case of Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Court declared that the polluter pays principle is an essential feature of sustainable development.

  • Precautionary Principle:

  • The Principle states that where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental harm.

  • It places the burden of proof on the person or entity undertaking an activity to demonstrate that it is not environmentally harmful.

  • In the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Court held that lack of scientific certainty cannot justify postponing measures to prevent environmental harm and placed the burden of proof on developers.

  • Doctrine of Public Trust:

  • The concept is that the public has a right to expect certain natural things including waterbodies, wetlands, and natural lands like forests to retain their natural ingredients, and further that the idea of maintenance of their original characteristics finds way into the law of the land.

  • The public is considered the owner of the resources, and the government protects and maintains these resources for the public’s use.

  • In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Court held that natural resources like rivers, forests, and seashores are held by the State in trust for the people and cannot be transferred for private exploitation.

  • In October 2025, the Supreme court held that the doctrine of public trust is not confined on;y to natural waterbodies such as rivers, lakes and wetlands but also extends to man-made or artificially created waterbodies that serve ecological or environmental purposes.

  • Although the doctrine of public trust is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, it finds implicit support in:

  • Article 21: Right to life, expanded to include the right to a clean and healthy environment

  • Article 48A: Directive Principle directing the State to protect and improve the environment

  • Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment

  • Together, these provisions establish a constitutional foundation for the doctrine, enabling courts to interpret it as part of Indian environmental jurisprudence.

Measures to promote Supreme Court role in Environment Protection: Challenges

  • Dilution of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process: Shift to “Land acquisition first, EIA later. Moreover, EIAs conducted without precise location and area details weaken impact prediction and mitigation.

  • Recent 100-metre height-based definition of Aravallis (2025) marks a reversal from the ecological approach adopted in 2010, which discarded the 100 metres on an ecological basis.

  • It also weakens the precautionary principle, previously upheld in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996)

  • In Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021), the Court recognised the ecological importance of the Himalayan region but still allowed wider roads on the grounds of strategic defence needs, neglecting the ill-effects of the current infrastructural rush affecting future generations, especially when the constitutional obligations on the government and the citizen, under Article 48A and Article 51A(g), make it clear that it is the responsibility of citizens to safeguard the environment.

Conclusion: A consistent, principle-based judicial approach, supported by specialised green benches and reinforced constitutional commitment, remains essential to ensure that development does not come at the cost of irreversible ecological loss. Though there are certain limitations, but judicial activism has ensured that environmental protection remains integral to the rule of law and sustainable development in India.