Supreme Court Justice B V Nagarathna delivered a powerful lecture on the urgent need for integrating environmental protection with social justice, particularly in the context of extractive industries and their impact on vulnerable communities. Speaking at the Justice S B Sinha 4th Endowment Memorial Lecture held at the National University of Study and Research in Law in Ranchi, Justice Nagarathna warned that the pursuit of wealth by industries such as mining and oil extraction must not come at the cost of "destroyed ecosystems" and displaced populations.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that environmental issues are deeply intertwined with human lives and social equity. She highlighted that pollution, climate change, and resource depletion disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized, and therefore, environmental protection cannot be viewed in isolation from social justice concerns. She described environmental justice as a "normative framework" that not only aims to safeguard ecological systems but also ensures equality, distributive fairness, and democratic participation. This framework extends the constitutional right to life beyond mere survival to include health, dignity, and well-being.
Focusing on the role and responsibilities of corporations, especially those engaged in extractive industries, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that these companies "frequently operate in ecologically fragile and socially vulnerable regions" such as Jharkhand. She criticized the common scenario where corporations enter with permits and licenses but leave behind damaged landscapes. The harm caused by such industries may not be immediately visible but manifests over time in contaminated water, infertile soil, and communities that lose not only their land but also their cultural memory.
Justice Nagarathna underscored that no financial compensation can fully restore a destroyed ecosystem or recover a displaced cultural identity. She noted that the mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provisions under the Companies Act are not just voluntary gestures but enforceable obligations that reflect the understanding that economic success must be socially responsible and environmentally sustainable.
The Justice also challenged the tendency to "other" nature, a phenomenon reflected in the common use of the phrase "natural disasters." She argued that many disasters, such as flooding, are not purely natural but result from human negligence and poor urban planning. For instance, the frequent flooding in Bengaluru has been exacerbated by the degradation and loss of lakes that once absorbed excess rainwater. Labeling such events as natural disasters wrongly shifts blame onto nature rather than recognizing human actions as the root cause.
Turning to the role of the judiciary and government in addressing environmental challenges, Justice Nagarathna described environmental law as "hot law," a term coined by scholar Elizabeth Fisher to denote a legal field that is dynamic, forward-looking, and constantly shaped by evolving scientific knowledge, economic factors, and political considerations. She explained that because scientific understanding is provisional and evolving, legal standards must be flexible and responsive rather than fixed and static.
To effectively navigate the complexities of environmental governance, Justice Nagarathna outlined three guiding principles for judicial and governmental decision-making. First, decisions must be highly context-sensitive, tailoring legal responses to prevent injustice. She cited the Supreme Court's evolution of the doctrine of "absolute liability" in the aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which holds hazardous industries strictly accountable regardless of fault or negligence.
Second, decision-makers must carefully balance competing developmental and ecological interests, recognizing the need for progress while protecting the environment.
Third, she asserted that balancing has its limits. Certain ecologically critical areas-including biologically significant zones, bio-corridors, and eco-sensitive areas-must be declared inviolable. She warned that some ecological thresholds, once crossed, are irreversible, and governments should therefore prohibit activities such as unchecked tourism and wildlife safaris in forest sanctuaries that could cause irreversible damage.
Justice Nagarathna invoked the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, reminding her audience that society is a partnership that includes the living, the dead, and the unborn. Courts, she said, must act as custodians of the environment for future generations, ensuring that decisions today do not compromise the rights and well-being of those yet to come.
She traced the development of India's environmental jurisprudence, noting that constitutional protection for the environment began in 1976 with the insertion of Articles 48A and 51A(g) into the Constitution. These articles impose duties on the State and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment. Over time, the Supreme Court expanded this constitutional mandate to recognize a fundamental right to a healthy environment. This shift moved from an anthropocentric perspective-focused solely on humans-to an ecocentric approach that recognizes the intrinsic value of nature itself.
Guided by principles such as the "polluter pays" rule and "intergenerational equity," Indian courts have progressively reinforced environmental protection as a constitutional imperative. Justice Nagarathna's address reaffirmed this trajectory and called for continued vigilance and innovation in legal and policy frameworks to safeguard the environment while promoting social justice.
The lecture was held in memory of the late Justice S B Sinha, a distinguished jurist born in present-day Jharkhand. Justice Sinha served on four different high courts before his tenure on the Supreme Court from 2002 to 2009. Remembered as one of the court's foremost dissenters, Justice Nagarathna paid tribute to his legacy of principled reasoning and unwavering commitment to constitutional values.
In summary, Justice B V Nagarathna's lecture was a poignant reminder that environmental protection and social justice must go hand in hand. She urged courts, governments, and corporations to recognize their moral and legal responsibilities to the environment and marginalized communities, emphasizing that economic activities, particularly in extractive industries, cannot be divorced from their ecological and social impacts. Her call for a judicial and governmental framework grounded in environmental justice highlights the need for context-sensitive, forward-looking, and principled approaches to preserving both nature and human dignity for present and future generations.