“In nature, nothing exists alone,” proclaimed the noted environmentalist Rachel Carson in her seminal work Silent Spring (1962). The prescience of her statement certainly rings true today; it is a humble reminder to man and his Anthropocene that his actions have an impact, that he is not divorced from nature but an indelible part of it, for better or worse.
Nestled in the lap of the Himalayas, Uttarakhand is a land of natural splendour; a land where emerald forests stretch like whispers of eternity, snow-capped peaks rise like sentinels of time, and rivers, cascading in ceaseless melody, carve paths that echo ancient tales. It is the Devbhoomi (Land of the Gods), holding not only immense natural beauty but also a profound cultural and spiritual legacy, serving as the cradle of yoga, meditation, and Himalayan folklore.
Yet, the paradise is teetering precariously on the edge of catastrophe. Year after year, as greenhouse gas emissions rise, as global temperatures soar, and as more forests and their natural inhabitants make way for urban man and woman, the region increasingly bears the brunt of relentless climate disasters, whether through glacial lake outbursts, landslides, flash floods, or erratic monsoons. Each event exposes the fragility and susceptibility of its existence to anthropogenic changes.
Caught in the throes of profound destitution and an ever-expanding population, India’s foremost goal has been to obliterate its entrenched poverty, embrace modernization and growth through industrial advancements, and reclaim its deserved position on the global stage. However, the pursuit of this vision, frequently expressed in debates surrounding climate disasters in Uttarakhand, habitually finds itself at odds with sustainability imperatives.
Hence, addressing environmental challenges primarily occurs through remedial measures implemented by the judiciary. In this regard, the High Court of Uttarakhand and the Supreme Court (more recently, along with the National Green Tribunal) have often deliberated upon matters of urgent and enduring ecological repercussions in the state. These matters are frequently brought forth with the aid of public interest litigation (PIL) jurisdiction and activism, with many claimants justifying their stance by drawing upon Indian constitutional ethos. 2024 is no exception.
The year has witnessed several climate disaster cases, with constitutionality as a recurrent theme. Six of them are outlined below:
In a landmark decision, the petitioners sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to protect the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican, two bird species severely impacted by habitat loss and environmental degradation due to the construction of, and collisions with, several overhead solar power transmission lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
In its reasoning, the Court built upon earlier jurisprudence (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath) concerning the right to a healthy and fully realized life sans biodiversity loss, as encompassed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It ultimately held environmental degradation and climate change to pose direct threats to this right.
Moreover, the impacts of climate change are not uniform; marginalized and vulnerable communities often bear a disproportionate burden, leading to an absence of equitable protection for all citizens under Article 14. Further, India’s obligations under the Paris Agreement necessitate domestic actions aligned with global climate goals. Thus, in a first for Asia, the verdict recognized the state’s responsibility to preserve the constitutional right of individuals to be free from the deleterious ramifications of climate change.
The Court criticized the “lackadaisical” stance of the Uttarakhand administration toward combating forest fires that have claimed innocent lives and ravaged the delicate greenery of the Himalayan terrain in the Pauri Garhwal region. Issues included the allocation of a mere ₹3.10 crore for the fiscal year 2023-24 (when ₹9.13 crore had already been designated by the Centre), the purported reallocation of forestry staff and firefighting teams for electoral duties, and vacant positions within the Forest Department.
In the proceedings, the Court referenced Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, as encompassing the right to a healthy environment (first held in RLEK v. State of U.P.), in conjunction with the government’s duty to preserve natural resources in public trust for its citizens, and demanded greater efforts from the state machinery to curb forest fires.
Joshimath, a town of profound cultural and spiritual significance in Uttarakhand, has been grappling with severe land subsidence, leading to structural damages to infrastructure and posing risks to its residents. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued a significant directive addressing the subsidence crisis therein.
Earlier, it had identified causes such as excessive unplanned construction, over-concretization, traffic congestion, and building activities exceeding environmental limits. In its order dated 9th July, it directed the state Chief Secretary to submit an affidavit outlining specific actions taken to mitigate the issue. Additionally, based on a geo-mapping of the region, pending projects were to be reviewed in light of the extant geological vulnerability of specific areas to earthquakes.
Lastly, drawing a parallel with state indifference shown in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the NGT noted a similar insouciant lack of action by the Uttarakhand government regarding demolition notices served to 19 unsafe buildings, whose present status had not been disclosed.
At the behest of the petitioner’s PIL raising alarm over frequent landslides and disasters and seeing the delay in the receipt of individual state responses upon a “template for sustainable urbanization of hill stations,” the Supreme Court decided to form a panel of experts to assess the carrying capacity (the maximum number of individuals an environment can sustain without degrading its resources) of overcrowded hill stations in Uttarakhand and other Himalayan states.
Hon’ble CJI Chandrachud, whilst heading the bench, found merit in Article 48A, which directs the State to endeavour to protect and improve the environment. The bench viewed excessive tourism and the construction of illegal infrastructure as major factors in the initiation of natural disasters, particularly landslides, opining that it is necessary for affected states to ensure that they regulate tourism and urbanization at thresholds below the carrying capacity of the region to the best of their abilities.
The NGT, while hearing a case on unauthorized large-scale deforestation harming the arboreal biodiversity, increasing wildfires, and affecting the recharging of Naini Lake, passed an order for the classification of the town of Nainital into development (no restrictions), regulated (some restrictions), and prohibited (absolute restrictions) zones for construction purposes, based on environmental conditions, while also calling for increasing the catchment area of Naini Lake.
The NGT in its decision found influence in the notion of parens patriae (a country as the parent protector of its territory, including natural resources) and the preambular ideal of fraternity, which includes compassion for the natural world (as held in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India). It also recommended forming multi-district committees comprising officials, experts, and local representatives to oversee the management of the designated zones, which is yet to be done as of the writing of this piece.
The NGT mandated the Uttarakhand government to provide detailed information on the feedback received from various stakeholders and the public regarding the Uttarakhand Floodplain Zoning Act, 2012. Additionally, the tribunal required a clear timeline for addressing and resolving the issues identified in the feedback.
This directive was in response to a petition concerning the incomplete demarcation and identification of floodplain zones, particularly along the Sonali River, a tributary of the Ganga, which had caused intense flooding in the past. Despite a prior order in August 2024, only an interim notification under Section 8 of the Act had been issued by October 4, 2024.
The NGT emphasized the necessity of finalizing these demarcations to prevent encroachments and pollution in floodplain areas, which was a major source of drinking water contamination affecting the lives of millions who relied on river water, citing Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (the right to clean and safe drinking water under Article 21).
Each flood, each cloudburst, each landslide, each forest fire: each disaster chips away at the resilience of Uttarakhand’s environment and its people. The unsettling truth is that the ecosystem is nearing its tipping point—it can no longer be belittled. While the judiciary has stepped forward at several junctures, its determinations alone cannot suffice; they need to be efficaciously implemented, strengthened, and enhanced.
There must be a collective will: a societal call to action that prioritizes sustainability over short-term gains. Policymakers, local communities, and individuals must work in unison to protect what remains. Reforestation, stricter regulation of construction, and community-based conservation efforts.
Virendra is a law student at the School of Law, UPES Dehradun.
