Growth at what cost? Rethinking development, environment and judicial activism

For millennia, living systems have provided food, clothing, and materials for building homes. They have conditioned the air, regulated the global water cycle, created soil for agriculture, and decomposed and absorbed waste. The activities of seven billion people, however, are now causing profound changes in the biosphere, ranging from altering Earth’s physical and chemical environment to the direct depletion of life systems.

The ‘government alone’ approach is no longer sufficient to achieve rapid growth and sustainable development. Over the years, central and state governments have created space for other actors such as the corporate sector, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), and institutions like cooperatives, Self-Help Groups, and charitable bodies to support these efforts. Section 35 (CCA) of the Income Tax Act, for instance, encourages businesses to claim deductions for expenditure on approved rural development projects. Consequently, several corporate entities have set up organisations to utilise this opportunity, aligning such initiatives with their corporate identity.

Another significant step was the 2017 amendment to the Companies Act, mandating corporate bodies to allocate a portion of their profits to specified socio-economic activities. While this move attracted a strong response, natural resource management and environmental protection have remained relatively neglected.

The Supreme Court of India, as in many such instances in the past, stepped in to suggest corrective measures, an example of judicial activism. The Court has frequently intervened through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a mechanism that emerged in the late 1970s, led by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. PIL has since become an effective instrument for ensuring access to justice and enabling judicial intervention in the public interest. Primarily empowered by Article 32 of the Constitution, PIL allows courts to be guided by progressive views on public policy rather than strictly by precedent. It protects individual rights, ensures government accountability, and fills legislative gaps, proving effective in numerous cases.

In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai (1976), Justice Krishna Iyer emphasised that PIL ensures the legal system serves the poor and oppressed, reinforcing a more accessible judiciary. Similarly, in Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979), the first reported PIL, the Supreme Court exposed the inhuman conditions of undertrial prisoners and established the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Other landmark cases include S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981), which established the doctrine of locus standi, allowing any public-spirited individual to approach the court on behalf of others; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, which led to the principle of absolute liability and significant environmental gains, including the closure of polluting industries in Delhi and protection of the Taj Mahal. The case also embedded the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” into the Indian law.

My father, who retired as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1960, viewed these developments with some concern. He believed that the judiciary, as one of the three wings of the state, should respect the boundaries between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Matters of socio-economic and political importance, he felt, were better handled by their respective domains. He also believed the judiciary was already overburdened. While judicial activism has undoubtedly protected vulnerable groups and driven social reform, critics argue that it can become anti-majoritarian and lead to judicial overreach, effectively turning judges into policymakers. They advocate judicial restraint.

It was heartening to read an article by Mohan Chandra Pargaien, a member of the Indian Forest Service and former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Telangana, published in The Hindu on March 25, advocating this cause.

It is a given that all developmental activity comes with a price tag attached so far as environmental degradation is concerned. Depletion and contamination of the aquifer, pollution of the atmosphere with harmful emissions and conversion of land being used for agricultural to other purposes such as industry, housing, and commerce are the inevitable consequences. Since development effort cannot be abandoned altogether, measures which repair the damage done to the natural resources and restore conditions to those in existence before the developmental projects were undertaken, it is felt, are compulsory steps to be taken simultaneously.

There have been several instances where developmental projects have led to environmental degradation, often bypassing regulatory clearances. The Lavasa Hill City Project in Maharashtra, for example, faced criticism for its impact on the Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It was accused of violating the Forest Conservation Act (1980) and Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) norms, leading to deforestation and soil erosion. The Sardar Sarovar Dam Project on the Narmada River was another such case, criticised for deforestation, biodiversity loss, and large-scale displacement without adequate rehabilitation. The Polavaram Dam Project in Andhra Pradesh has similarly faced protests and legal challenges due to its environmental impact and displacement of local communities.

Activists and institutions serve as the “green backbone” of environmental protection, acting as catalysts for policy change, watchdogs for compliance, and educators for sustainable living. They bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public awareness, often driving action where state intervention falls short.

There have been several notable examples of such activism. The Bishnoi movement of 1730 in Khejarli, Rajasthan, led by Amrita Devi Bishnoi, saw 363 villagers sacrifice their lives to protect Khejri trees from being cut down by soldiers of the King of Jodhpur. It is recognized as one of India’s earliest environmental protests, which involved villagers hugging trees to prevent commercial logging, pioneering Indian ecofeminism.

The Chipko Movement (1973), led by Sundarlal Bahuguna, Chandi Prasad Bhatt, and Gaura Devi in Uttarakhand, popularised tree-hugging as a form of resistance against deforestation.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (1985–99), led by Medha Patkar and Baba Amte, opposed large dam projects on the Narmada River due to concerns over displacement and ecological damage. Similarly, the Save Silent Valley Movement (1978), led by the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad and poet Sugathakumari, successfully prevented a hydroelectric project in a fragile rainforest ecosystem.

While such activism is invaluable, its effectiveness depends on its commitment to environmental protection. When driven by political motives, it can lead to undesirable consequences.

The growing importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was recently highlighted when Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy announced a new policy framework. This initiative is significant for two reasons. For one thing, it introduced a new dimension to the entire narrative, with the focus shifting to local application of corporate funds under the CSR arrangement. Secondly, it is significant that, while the announcement mandates emphasis on undoubtedly important sectors such as health, education, and social infrastructure, a mention of environmental protection was notably absent. One feels confident that, once the feelings of the Apex Court are brought to the notice of the government of Telangana state, it will ensure that adequate attention is paid to this highly crucial and neglected area.

Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has also announced a major overhaul of the state's CSR framework to ensure that companies operating within the state utilize their CSR funds locally, rather than spending them in other states. Expressing dissatisfaction that Telangana currently receives only about 3% of the national CSR contributions despite having a strong industrial base, the CM is pushing for significant reforms to boost local investment. We would do well to remember that, paradoxically, Homo sapiens is perhaps the only species capable of damaging the very environment that sustains it.

(The writer was formerly Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh)