Guwahati: The recent devastating floods in Upper Assam’s Sivasagar and adjoining districts should trigger a serious debate on environmental degradation, including detrimental mining and deforestation, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said on Saturday, warning that what happened in Sivasagar today could happen in any other part of Assam tomorrow.
Speaking at a special lecture organised by environmental collective Dharitri Suraksha Mancha, Assam, in Guwahati on Saturday, Justice Bhuyan said relief measures were necessary but could provide only a temporary response to the crisis.
“The suddenness of the flood and the intensity of the flood has caught the people and our system,” Justice Bhuyan said, stressing the need for a conscious debate on the factors behind the increasing severity of floods in the state.
He said experts from Gauhati University and IIT Roorkee had pointed to multiple reasons behind the flooding, but identified detrimental mining and deforestation in the region as among the major concerns.
“Today it is Sivasagar, tomorrow it can be any other,” he said, calling for greater attention to the environmental factors contributing to such disasters.
Floods do not discriminate
Justice Bhuyan also underlined how environmental disasters cut across social and political divisions.
“The severity of the flood doesn’t distinguish” between people on the basis of religion, tribal identity or other social divisions, he said, adding that the disaster had affected everyone.
He urged people to set aside “artificial distinctions” and come together to address the fundamental issues confronting society.
He also linked the need for social solidarity to the constitutional principle of fraternity, referring to his recent dissenting judgment in the Apoorva Mishra case.
Environment is a constitutional responsibility
Speaking on the broader theme of environment and sustainable development, Justice Bhuyan traced India’s environmental constitutional framework to the 42nd Amendment in 1976, which introduced Article 48A and Article 51A(g).
Article 48A requires the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, while Article 51A(g) places a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.
Justice Bhuyan stressed that environmental protection was not merely the responsibility of governments or courts but also a duty of citizens.
He said scientific temperament and environmental consciousness were interconnected, arguing that citizens must develop a rational and informed understanding of nature and environmental issues.
Supreme Court has shaped environmental jurisprudence
Justice Bhuyan said the Supreme Court had played a major role in developing India’s environmental jurisprudence, particularly through public interest litigation.
Referring to landmark cases including M.C. Mehta, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, he said the courts had developed principles such as absolute liability, polluter pays, precautionary principle, sustainable development, public trust doctrine and intergenerational equity.
He said the right to a pollution-free environment had evolved as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Bhuyan gave particular emphasis to the precautionary principle, saying environmental damage should be prevented rather than merely compensated after it occurs.
“Polluter pays is only a principle of reparation,” he said, arguing that the precautionary principle should occupy the highest place among environmental principles.
‘There is no conflict between development and environment’
Justice Bhuyan rejected the idea that environmental protection and development are opposing objectives.
“There is no conflict,” he said, describing the notion that development must come at the cost of the environment as a “false narrative”.
He said true development should improve people’s quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
“We need to adopt a new paradigm of development, one that is sustainable, inclusive and respectful of the environment,” he said.
He also warned against treating environmental challenges and development projects as an automatic conflict, stressing that every project, whether large or small, must comply with environmental norms.
Courts must not shut the door on genuine environmental challenges
Justice Bhuyan said constitutional courts have an important role in examining challenges to projects alleged to have violated environmental norms.
While acknowledging that some public interest litigations could be frivolous or publicity-oriented, he cautioned against treating all environmental challenges in the same manner.
“Where would they go, if the doors of the courts are closed?” he asked, referring to committed environmentalists who approach courts against projects they believe violate environmental safeguards.
He said courts should instead examine whether a project has complied with the environmental norms prescribed by the government.
India’s poor environmental ranking a cause for concern
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the 2026 Environmental Performance Index, saying India had been ranked 176th among 177 countries assessed, with only Laos placed below it.
He cautioned that the report should not be accepted as an absolute “gospel truth”, but said it would be equally wrong to dismiss the findings.
He called upon Indian universities to undertake serious research into the country’s environmental performance and examine whether environmental concerns were being sacrificed at the altar of populism.
‘Environment does not fetch political dividends’
Justice Bhuyan said environmental issues often fail to receive adequate political attention because they do not generate immediate electoral dividends.
“Environment and environmental degradation are not issues which can fetch political dividends,” he said, contrasting them with issues such as subsidies, jobs and identity politics.
He said the responsibility therefore increasingly rests on citizens, civil society organisations and constitutional courts to keep environmental concerns alive in public discourse.
The Supreme Court judge concluded by urging citizens to remain vigilant about environmental issues, stressing that environmental degradation ultimately affects everyone.
The special lecture was organised by Dharitri Suraksha Mancha, Assam, an environmental collective, on the theme “Balancing Development and Sustainability: Recent Trends.”