Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, addressing BRICS nation judiciaries, called on courts to take a more decisive role in ecological governance. He argued that development cannot exceed nature's carrying capacity and that law must act as a sentinel for future generations. His remarks reframe environmental protection as a constitutional duty, linking the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 to intergenerational equity — a principle the Supreme Court has steadily expanded since the 1990s.

CJI Surya Kant's address to BRICS judiciaries crystallises a constitutional doctrine that has been building in Indian environmental law for three decades: the right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21.

The doctrinal chain runs as follows. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court first read the right to pollution-free water and air as part of the right to life. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court operationalised this through the Absolute Liability rule (Oleum Gas leak, 1987) and repeatedly used Article 32 as an instrument of environmental enforcement. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court constitutionalised the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle as part of domestic law through Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g).

The concept CJI Surya Kant invokes — the rights of 'the unborn' — is the doctrine of Intergenerational Equity, first adopted by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. It holds that the present generation holds natural resources in trust for future generations and cannot exhaust them.

The phrase 'carrying capacity' is also a term of art: it is the maximum resource use a natural system can sustain without long-term degradation, and the Environment Protection Act 1986 and EIA frameworks reference it in permitting decisions.

For CLAT PG aspirants, the critical exam link is between Article 21 (right to life), Article 48A (State's duty to protect environment — Directive Principle), and Article 51A(g) (citizen's fundamental duty to protect natural environment). Courts have used all three together to justify environmental judicial review.