Supreme Court has consistently read the right to a clean and healthy environment into Article 21, making environmental protection a fundamental right. Provisions under Articles 48A and 51A(g) further strengthen the constitutional basis by imposing a duty upon the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment.

The Rise of Judicial Activism in Environment

Landmark judgments have reflected the proactive stance of the judiciary. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court pioneered principles such as “absolute liability” and “polluter pays”, transforming environmental law into a powerful instrument of accountability. From directing the closure of polluting industries in Delhi to mandating CNG conversion in public transport, the Court has stepped into areas where governmental inertia was palpable. Similarly, in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the doctrine of sustainable development was recognized as part of Indian law.

Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been instrumental in this evolution. They opened the gates of environmental justice to ordinary citizens, environmental groups, and activists, making the judiciary the arena for ecological battles that might otherwise be stifled by political and corporate interests.

When the Court Becomes the Crusader

The judiciary’s intervention has often resembled a crusade—issuing directions on vehicle emissions, industrial waste, deforestation, and mining. Courts have even laid down monitoring mechanisms and timelines for compliance. While such interventions highlight the judiciary’s moral commitment, they also expose the institutional tension between governance and adjudication.

On one hand, judicial activism fills governance gaps, compelling policymakers to act. On the other, it raises concerns about separation of powers: is the Court overstepping its constitutional role when it begins to regulate industrial policy or dictate urban planning? The balance between being a constitutional guardian and a policy-maker is delicate.

Challenges in Environmental Jurisprudence

Despite judicial zeal, enforcement remains inconsistent. Orders banning illegal sand mining or regulating air quality often falter at the implementation stage due to lack of administrative will. Further, critics argue that over-judicialization may create dependency on courts instead of strengthening regulatory institutions such as the Pollution Control Boards.

Moreover, the tension between development and environment continues to haunt jurisprudence. Projects promising economic growth often clash with ecological safeguards. Here, courts are frequently forced into the role of arbiters of “public interest,” a domain that ideally belongs to democratic governance.

Towards a Balanced Future

For environmental jurisprudence to remain sustainable, the judiciary must act as a catalyst rather than a substitute for governance. Its role is to articulate constitutional principles— sustainable development, intergenerational equity, precautionary principle—while ensuring that the State remains accountable. At the same time, legislative and executive organs must rise to their constitutional duties, framing policies that harmonize growth with ecological preservation.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary’s journey in environmental protection demonstrates the Court’s capacity to act as a crusader for justice when governance falters. Yet, true environmental democracy cannot rest on judicial shoulders alone. It requires robust institutions, informed citizenry, and political will. Courts may light the path, but it is for society and the State to walk it.

When the court becomes the crusader, it reminds us that justice is not only about protecting rights today but also about preserving the planet for tomorrow.