Climate Adjudication Must Look Beyond Isolated Environmental Injuries: CJI Surya Kant

Addressing the inaugural session of the International Conference on “The Future of Environment and Climate Dynamics” organised by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in New Delhi, CJI Surya Kant said environmental protection had deep roots in Indian heritage and had subsequently found constitutional and judicial expression.

The conference brought together jurists, scientists, policymakers and environmental experts from nearly 80 countries and institutions.

CJI Surya Kant described the Constitution as a commitment extending across generations, referring to its environmental provisions. “The Constitution of India is therefore not a mere political charter. It is a moral covenant with past, present and future generations.”

He referred to Article 48A, which directs the State to protect and improve the environment, and the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) requiring citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.

The CJI said constitutional principles required judicial interpretation and implementation, highlighting the role played by the Supreme Court in developing environmental jurisprudence.

“The Supreme Court of India has stood tall as the banyan tree of environmental justice, with roots deep in our civilizational ethos and branches sheltering the rights of unseen generations.”

Evolution of environmental jurisprudence

Justice Surya Kant traced the development of environmental law through several landmark stages of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

He referred to the Court’s interventions in the 1980s concerning the right to sanitation and a healthy environment, followed by the recognition of the right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21.

He also highlighted the evolution of principles such as the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle, along with the doctrine of absolute liability for industrial harm and the public trust doctrine.

According to the CJI, these principles established that environmental protection could not be treated merely as an administrative or regulatory concern. “Its rulings underscore how safeguarding nature is not an act of altruism, but of self-preservation, an investment in the very continuity of life.”

Justice Surya Kant said the Court had subsequently developed a more nuanced approach to development, seeking to ensure that development projects remained subject to environmental scrutiny and accountability.

He referred to the emerging concept of eco-centric proportionality, under which environmental protection must remain rigorous while taking account of developmental realities. “Consequently, the question before our courts is no longer conservation versus development, but rather how the two can be harmonized and sustained together.”

Climate rights emerging as a constitutional concern

The CJI identified the movement from traditional environmental rights towards climate-related rights as an important development in Indian jurisprudence. He said the adverse consequences of climate change could affect fundamental rights relating to equality, livelihood and health, as well as the conditions necessary for their meaningful enjoyment.

“The recent Indian jurisprudence on climate has brought this question into sharper constitutional focus by recognizing that the adverse effects of climate change can implicate fundamental rights of equality, livelihood, health and the conditions necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of these rights.”

Justice Surya Kant also emphasised the need for courts to consider cumulative ecological harm, rather than examining environmental damage caused by individual projects in isolation.

He observed: “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 recognize national frontiers.”

He said climate adjudication would therefore need to consider the broader ecological system in which a particular project operated.

Energy transition, cites and climate litigation

Looking ahead, the CJI said the energy transition would bring new infrastructure, technologies and patterns of land and resource use, creating difficult questions for courts and policymakers.

He said cities would have to balance mobility, housing and economic activity with air quality, water security and ecological resilience.

Climate disputes, he added, were also likely to involve multiple actors and jurisdictions, requiring courts to address increasingly complex questions of environmental governance and responsibility.

CJI highlights comparative environmental jurisprudence

Justice Surya Kant also referred to environmental jurisprudence emerging from different jurisdictions, including Nepal, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Russia, Armenia, the United States and Australia.

He noted that different constitutional systems had adopted different approaches to environmental protection, sustainable development, government responsibility, climate science and institutional competence.

The CJI cautioned against simply transplanting principles from one jurisdiction to another. “These varied challenges and approaches demonstrate that comparative environmental jurisprudence should not become an exercise in transplantation. It should become an exercise in dialogue.”

He said courts across jurisdictions had increasingly recognised that the environment could not be treated merely as a backdrop to human activity. “The environment is not an inert backdrop to human ambition, but a living, breathing protagonist in the story of our shared well-being.”

Justice Surya Kant concluded by emphasising that environmental justice required cooperation between courts, scientific institutions, policymakers and the international community. “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.”

The CJI said the conference provided an opportunity for judicial and environmental stakeholders from across jurisdictions to strengthen dialogue on the future of environmental and climate justice.