Supreme Court of India· 21 November 2025

Is environmental protection a matter of administrative choice or a constitutional imperative?

In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan

2025 INSC 1341
Coram: Sandeep Mehta; Vikram Nath

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art.21 Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

It is a constitutional imperative, not a matter of administrative choice. The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean, healthy and ecologically balanced environment; Articles 47 and 48A impose a substantive obligation upon the State to safeguard public health and protect the environment; and Article 51A(g) casts a corresponding duty upon every citizen to preserve and improve the natural environment.

Headnote

Constitution of India - Arts. 21, 47, 48A, 51A(g) - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Environmental protection - Interim stay - Polluter Pays - Constitution of India - Arts. 21, 47, 48A, 51A(g) - Environmental protection a constitutional imperative - Held: Environmental protection is not a matter of administrative choice but a constitutional imperative. Article 21 embraces a clean, healthy and ecologically balanced environment; Articles 47 and 48A bind the State and Article 51A(g) every citizen. (¶15) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Interim stay on a remedial order - Stay not a licence for inaction - Held further: An interim stay cannot be read to freeze implementation of substantive remedial and regulatory directions. A party aggrieved must seek modification or clarification, not use the stay as an excuse to sit idle. (¶18, 20) Environmental jurisprudence - Precautionary principle - Inter-generational equity - Held further: Environmental injury of this magnitude cannot be reversed by knee jerk reactions, incremental compliances or symbolic enforcement. It requires a coordinated response grounded in the precautionary principle, sustainable development and the inter-generational equity doctrine. (¶19) Polluter Pays - Costs of the Oversight Committee - Recovery from erring officials and units - Held further: Expenditure on the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee is recoverable from the erring officials or departments and from the industrial units responsible for the pollution. Stay modified; Oversight Committee constituted. (¶26, 27)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 15Taken together, the principles emerging from the foregoing judgments establish beyond doubt that environmental protection is not a matter of administrative choice but a constitutional imperative. This Court has consistently affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean, healthy and ecologically balanced environment; that Articles 47 and 48A impose a substantive obligation upon the State to safeguard public health and protect the environment; and that Article 51A(g) casts a corresponding duty upon every citizen to preserve and improve the natural environment. The jurisprudence of this Court articulates a coherent doctrinal framework in which environmental rights are recognised as integral to human dignity and sustainable development. These decisions, read together, leave no room for ambiguity: where environmental degradation threatens life, health and ecological balance, the State must act with urgency, competence and foresight, and constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene when such obligations are not met. It is in the light of the aforesaid well-established constitutional jurisprudence that this Court must now turn to the persistent and grave contamination of the river system and the adjoining areas of the State of Rajasthan, assess the adequacy of the measures undertaken by the State, and determine the scope of remedial directions necessary to vindicate the constitutional rights of the affected communities and restore the environmental integrity of the entire region. VI. Environmental Degradation of the river system: Findings and Impact

Acts & Sections

Art.21 Constitution of IndiaArt.47 Constitution of IndiaArt.48A Constitution of IndiaArt.51A(g) Constitution of IndiaNational Green Tribunal Act, 2010Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an interim stay on a National Green Tribunal remedial order justify State inaction on pollution?Who ultimately bears the cost of the High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections