Growth In Environmental Law Largely Attributable To PILs: Justice N Kotiswar Singh

New Delhi : Supreme Court Judge Justice N Kotiswar Singh has said that the development of environmental law in India can be largely attributed to the growth of the public interest litigation (PIL).
Justice Singh made the remarks while addressing the UN Climate Change Conference 2025 in Brazil’s Belem on November 13.
The conference, also called COP30 or the Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is being held from November 10 to 21.
Speaking about a period of transition marked by judicial activism, Justice Singh said, “This phase of environmental awareness also coincided with the path breaking legal development taking place, initiated by the Supreme Court, the rise of the Public Interest Litigation in India.”
“The growth in environmental law can be attributed to a large extent to the growth of the PIL in the late 1970s and 1980s,” he added.
He said that the apex court provided for a procedural innovation by giving an expansive meaning to the concept of locus standi, and allowed any public-spirited citizen or organisation to approach the court on issues affecting the public at large.
Justice Singh underlined that the top court moved beyond the traditional requirement of locus standi where only aggrieved parties could seek redress.
“Parallel to this procedural innovation, the Supreme Court was also embarking upon an exercise of expanding the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life) to include environmental protection, building on its broad language and humanistic interpretation,” he said.
The top court judge said that the “fusion of PIL and expansive interpretation of Article 21” became the “bedrock” of India’s environmental jurisprudence, and thereafter, from the 1980s onwards, the apex court delivered a series of path-breaking judgments, firmly establishing environmental principles in Indian law.
Justice Singh, however, said that the Supreme Court often faced the challenge of making complex scientific and ecological determinations without having expert infrastructure at its disposal.
He said that the experience of major industrial disasters, such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, was a wake-up call, following which the top court largely followed the legal principle of strict liability.

He further said the “uniquely Indian principle of absolute liability” arose in the 1986 case of M C Mehta versus Union of India, where it was held that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities bear full responsibility for any harm, with no exceptions.

Justice Singh said that subsequent rulings by the apex court introduced the ‘Polluter Pays’ and ‘Precautionary Principles’.

“The Supreme Court has progressively adopted a range of innovative strategies to enhance the administration of justice, extending beyond environmental matters to diverse areas of public concern,” he said.

The judge said that by the 1990s, India’s environmental jurisprudence entered a phase of consolidation, building upon the foundations of the 1970s and 1980s, as the Supreme Court began to lay down comprehensive environmental policies through its rulings, which, under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, became binding on all authorities and citizens unless altered by legislation.
By invoking its expansive writ jurisdiction and through the innovative use of PILs, the Supreme Court transformed itself into a guardian of environmental governance, Justice Singh said.

The apex court integrated Directive Principles of State Policy with Fundamental Rights, while also drawing upon natural law principles adopted by UNFCCC, he added.
He said that to institutionalise the judicial momentum, the establishment of the National Green Tribunal (2010) provided India with a specialised forum for swift and scientific adjudication of environmental disputes.
“Together, these developments transformed environmental protection from a matter of policy into a continuing constitutional commitment, where the judiciary emerged as both interpreter and enforcer of the nation’s ecological conscience,” Justice Singh said.
He said that while the judiciary played a pivotal role in bridging legislative gaps to uphold constitutional ideals, it had simultaneously maintained a careful balance between activism and restraint, thereby reinforcing its credibility as a guardian of justice rather than a policy maker.
“As we move into the 21st century, the Supreme Court’s environmental role continues to evolve in response to new challenges. Two significant and related themes stand out: addressing the climate crisis (often through the lens of sustainable development) and protecting biodiversity amid infrastructure expansion,” Justice Singh said. (Agencies)