Abstract
Judicial Activism has become a pivotal tool in addressing the complex challenges of environmental degradation and sustainable development. As global concerns over climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecological degradation escalate, judicial bodies worldwide are increasingly stepping beyond their traditional interpretative roles. This proactive approach, particularly visible in countries like India and the United States, has redefined the scope of environmental jurisprudence, turning courts into crucial actors in shaping policies that align with sustainable development goals (SDGs). This paper investigates how judicial activism contributes to sustainable development by enforcing environmental rights, interpreting constitutional provisions broadly, and compelling legislative and executive bodies to implement sustainable practices.
In India, judicial activism has evolved through a series of landmark judgments that have prioritized environmental protection as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Notable cases, such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, illustrate how the Supreme Court of India has extended the interpretation of the right to life to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. This case, among others, highlights the judiciary’s role in establishing environmental standards, such as the enforcement of pollution control measures and the preservation of natural resources. The Indian judiciary has used doctrines like the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter-pays principle’ to ensure that developmental activities do not compromise ecological balance (Gupta, 2019; Sharma, 2020).
Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court has exercised judicial activism in environmental matters, as seen in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. The court’s ruling mandated the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, setting a precedent for judicial intervention in climate policy. This case underscores the judiciary’s capability to enforce environmental regulations and push for sustainable development, even when executive agencies are reluctant to act. Such interventions demonstrate the judiciary’s influence in ensuring that environmental policies are consistent with national and international commitments to sustainable development (Johnson, 2017; Williams, 2021).
However, the paper also addresses the criticisms of judicial activism in environmental law. Some argue that judicial overreach may undermine democratic principles by encroaching on the domains of the legislature and executive. Critics caution that courts should not function as ‘super-legislatures,’ dictating policy directions beyond their mandate. Nevertheless, proponents argue that judicial activism is essential when legislative inertia or executive failures prevent effective environmental protection and the achievement of sustainable development goals. Stone (2011) argues that without judicial intervention, crucial ecological issues would remain unaddressed, and vulnerable communities would continue to bear the brunt of environmental degradation without access to justice.