The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant addressing the inaugural session of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) International Conference on “The Future of Environment and Climate Dynamics” at Vigyan Bhawan on Saturday, highlighted the changing landscape of environmental and climate adjudication, emphasising that courts must find a sustainable balance between development and ecological protection.
Addressing jurists, scientists, policy architects and domain experts from nearly 30 nations and institutions, the CJI traced the evolution of India’s environmental jurisprudence from constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A to the Supreme Court’s recognition of environmental protection as an aspect of fundamental rights.
The CJI recalled the development of several foundational principles of environmental law, including the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, absolute liability and the Public Trust Doctrine. He said the Supreme Court’s approach had evolved to ensure that development is neither completely foreclosed nor permitted without adequate scrutiny, expert oversight, restoration and accountability.
“
“The question before our Courts is no longer conservation versus development, but rather, how the two can be harmonised and sustained together. The recent Indian Jurisprudence on Climate has brought this question into sharper constitutional focus by recognising that the adverse effects of climate change can implicate fundamental rights of equality, livelihood, health and the conditions necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of rights.”
The CJI further said that climate adjudication must move beyond a narrow examination of the immediate environmental impact of an individual project. He pointed to the interconnected nature of ecological systems and said courts must consider cumulative environmental harm and the wider ecosystem in which a project operates. This, he said, becomes particularly important as climate disputes increasingly transcend administrative and national boundaries.
“
“A river does not experience pollution according to administrative boundaries. A forest does not understand the distinction between one project from another. The atmosphere does not recognise national frontiers. Climate adjudication must therefore look beyond the immediate proposal and examine the larger ecological system of which that project forms a part.”
The CJI identified the energy transition, new infrastructure, changing patterns of land and resource use, urbanisation, air quality, water security and ecological resilience among the challenges that courts will increasingly have to address. He also noted that climate disputes are likely to involve multiple actors and jurisdictions.
Referring to environmental jurisprudence across jurisdictions including Nepal, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Russia, Armenia, Thailand, the United States and Australia, the CJI said the global judicial experience offered important lessons but cautioned against mechanically transplanting one jurisdiction’s approach into another.
He said comparative environmental jurisprudence should instead become an exercise in judicial dialogue, with courts learning from different constitutional and institutional approaches to environmental protection.
Concluding his address, the CJI emphasised that environmental justice cannot be achieved through judicial action in isolation and requires collective will, scientific wisdom and international cooperation.
“
“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.”