Ecological Equity and India’s Constitution

Ecological Equity Needs Stronger Constitutional Protection

Syllabus:

GS-2: Environmental Pollution & Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment , (EIA), Sustainable Development, Climate Change

Why in the News ?

Ecological inequality is emerging as a major but under-recognised dimension of inequality in India.Himalayan, Northeastern and Western Ghats regions bear disproportionately high ecological and disaster-management responsibilities while often receiving fewer economic opportunities.Forest-rich States provide national benefits through carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and climate regulation, but the economic benefits are distributed unevenly.The Articles 14, 38(2) and 21 together provide a constitutional basis for recognising ecological inequality.Existing frameworks such as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), Biological Diversity Act and CAMPA provide important legal mechanisms but do not adequately address unequal ecological burdens among regions.India therefore needs asymmetric ecological governance, targeted fiscal transfers, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and adaptive forest management.

Ecological Inequality as a Constitutional Issue:

•     Ecological inequality refers to differences between regions and communities in their exposure to environmental risks, access to natural resources and responsibility for ecological conservation.
•     India exhibits considerable ecological variation between:

○      Himalayan States.

○      Northeastern States.

○      Western Ghats States.

○      Plains and relatively industrialised regions.

•     Fragile regions often bear a disproportionate responsibility for:

○      Watershed conservation.

○      Forest preservation.

○      Carbon storage.

○      Biodiversity protection.

○      Disaster mitigation.

•     At the same time, their ecological characteristics can restrict large-scale industrialisation and infrastructure development.
•     Industrialised States can consequently enjoy greater fiscal and employment opportunities while facing comparatively lower conservation constraints.
•     This creates a structural mismatch between ecological responsibility and economic opportunity.
•     Such inequality cannot simply be dismissed as a consequence of geographical differences.
•     Article 14 contains two important dimensions:

○      Equality before law, which restricts arbitrary State action.

○      Equal protection of laws, which permits differentiated treatment of unequal situations.

•     Therefore, treating ecologically unequal States identically may itself produce substantive inequality.
•     Article 38(2) directs the State to minimise inequalities among groups of people residing in different areas.
•     Ecological inequality directly affects economic opportunities, livelihoods, infrastructure and environmental security.
•     It should therefore be incorporated into the constitutional understanding of equality and social justice.

Key Constitutional and Legal Framework of Ecological Justice:

Constitutional Provisions

•     Article 14

○      Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.

○      Prohibits arbitrariness.

○      Permits reasonable classification based on relevant differences.

○      Can support differentiated treatment of ecologically unequal regions.

•     Article 21

○      Protects life and personal liberty.

○      Judicial interpretation has incorporated the right to a clean and healthy environment within the broader right to life.

•     Article 38(2)

○      Directs the State to minimise inequalities in:

■    Income.

■    Status.

■    Facilities.

■    Opportunities.

○      Specifically refers to inequalities among groups of people residing in different areas.

•     Article 48A

○      Directive Principle requiring the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

•     Article 51A(g)

○      Makes it a Fundamental Duty of citizens to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.

Forest Rights Act, 2006

•     Official name: Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
•     Objective:

○      Correct historical injustice against forest-dwelling communities.

○      Recognise individual and community forest rights.

○      Strengthen community participation in forest governance.

•     Gram Sabhas play a central role in initiating and determining forest-right claims.
•     Recognises different categories of rights, including:

○      Individual forest rights.

○      Community rights.

○      Community forest resource rights.

○      Rights over minor forest produce.

○      Grazing and traditional access rights.

•     Important principle:

○      Rights recognition and ecological stewardship should operate together.

Biological Diversity Act, 2002

•     Provides a legal framework for:

○      Conservation of biological diversity.

○      Sustainable use of biological resources.

○      Fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

•     Provides for institutions such as:

○      National Biodiversity Authority.

○      State Biodiversity Boards.

○      Biodiversity Management Committees.

•     People’s Biodiversity Registers document local biological resources and associated knowledge.

CAMPA Framework

•     Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 provides the statutory framework for compensatory afforestation funds.
•     Broad purpose:

○      Compensate for forest land diverted for non-forest purposes.

○      Support afforestation and ecological restoration.

○      Improve forest-related infrastructure and management.

•     Funds operate through:

○      National CAMPA.

○      State CAMPA.

•     Key UPSC issue:

○      Compensation should increasingly focus on ecological outcomes, not merely financial transfers.

Forest Policy Targets

•     National Forest Policy, 1988 broadly envisages:

○      33% of geographical area under forest/tree cover nationally.

○      66% in mountainous and hilly regions.

•     Rationale:

○      Ecological stability.

○      Soil conservation.

○      Watershed protection.

○      Climate regulation.

○      Biodiversity conservation.

Key Environmental Principles

•     Sustainable Development: Development must balance economic growth and environmental protection.
•     Precautionary Principle: Lack of complete scientific certainty should not justify postponing measures against serious environmental harm.
•     Polluter Pays Principle: Polluters should bear the cost of preventing and remedying environmental damage.
•     Inter-generational Equity: Natural resources should be conserved for future generations.
•     Public Trust Doctrine: The State holds natural resources in trust for the public.
•     Environmental Justice: Environmental benefits and burdens should be distributed fairly.
•     Ecological Carrying Capacity: Development should remain within the capacity of ecosystems to sustain environmental functions.
•     Payment for Ecosystem Services: Those maintaining valuable ecosystem services should receive appropriate economic incentives.

Important Institutions

•     Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
•     National Biodiversity Authority
•     State Biodiversity Boards
•     Biodiversity Management Committees
•     National CAMPA
•     State CAMPA
•     Gram Sabhas
•     National Green Tribunal

Ecological Burdens and Unequal Development

•     Forest-rich States perform ecological functions whose benefits extend beyond their territorial boundaries.
•     Their forests:

○      Act as carbon sinks.

○      Support biodiversity.

○      Regulate water flows.

○      Influence monsoon systems.

○      Reduce ecological and climate risks.

•     These benefits are enjoyed by the entire country rather than merely by the States where forests are located.
•     However, forest-rich regions may face restrictions on:

○      Mining.

○      Industrial expansion.

○      Infrastructure projects.

○      Land-use conversion.

○      Large-scale urbanisation.

•     These restrictions can reduce opportunities for employment generation and fiscal expansion.
•     Consequently, ecological conservation can create an opportunity cost for forest-rich States.
•     This also has implications for Article 16, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment.
•     While Article 16 does not guarantee identical economic outcomes between States, persistent ecological constraints can indirectly affect the capacity of regions to create employment and economic opportunities.
•     The Northeastern States illustrate this problem particularly well.
•     They have experienced concerns regarding forest degradation and relatively weak economic growth.
•     A region should not be forced to choose between protecting its ecological assets and providing adequate economic opportunities to its population.
•     Ecological conservation must therefore be accompanied by fiscal compensation and sustainable development strategies.
•     The principle should be:

○      Those who bear higher ecological costs should receive greater institutional and fiscal support.

•     This would make environmental conservation compatible with regional equity.

Why Uniform Environmental Policies Can Produce Inequality

•     Uniformity does not always result in equality.
•     Environmental conditions differ significantly between Indian States.
•     States vary in:

○      Forest cover.

○      Ecological fragility.

○      Climate vulnerability.

○      Pollution exposure.

○      Water availability.

○      Biodiversity.

○      Disaster risks.

•     Applying identical regulatory and fiscal frameworks to fundamentally different ecological contexts may therefore generate unequal outcomes.
•     For instance, a forest-rich mountainous State cannot necessarily follow the same development pathway as a heavily industrialised plains State.
•     India’s forest policy itself recognises this ecological asymmetry.
•     The broad policy target is 33% forest and tree cover nationally, while a higher target of 66% has traditionally been prescribed for hilly and mountainous regions.
•     This demonstrates that environmental governance already recognises geographical differences.
•     However, the editorial argues that financial and governance systems have not adequately internalised this asymmetry.
•     A State carrying greater ecological responsibilities should receive support proportionate to those responsibilities.
•     This can involve:

○      Differentiated fiscal transfers.

○      Region-specific environmental regulations.

○      Greater investment in green infrastructure.

○      Sustainable livelihood programmes.

○      Ecological restoration funds.

•     Such differentiated treatment would not violate equality.
•     Instead, it would represent substantive equality, where unequal conditions receive appropriate differentiated support.
•     The constitutional principle should therefore shift from “same treatment” to “fair treatment according to ecological circumstances.”

Forest Rights, Biodiversity and Governance Gaps

•     The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) recognises and vests certain forest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.
•     The Act seeks to address the historical injustice faced by forest-dependent communities.
•     The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 provides a framework for conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of biological resources.
•     These laws recognise the importance of community participation in natural-resource governance.
•     However, the editorial highlights a limitation in the existing approach.
•     Forest rights can be understood as being recognised through a relatively linear process, whereas ecological systems operate through continuous and cyclical processes.
•     Forests:

○      Regenerate.

○      Change over time.

○      Respond to climate conditions.

○      Experience biodiversity shifts.

○      Require continuous monitoring.

•     Consequently, recognising rights should be accompanied by mechanisms for:

○      Ecological monitoring.

○      Regeneration.

○      Adaptive management.

○      Community stewardship.

•     Gram Sabhas have important responsibilities under the FRA, but their authority needs to be supported by:

○      Technical knowledge.

○      Ecological data.

○      Financial resources.

○      Institutional capacity.

•     A justice-oriented framework must therefore balance:

○      Rights.

○      Responsibilities.

○      Conservation.

○      Regeneration.

•     This can help establish a principle of ecological circularity, under which rights over natural resources are accompanied by responsibilities for sustaining those resources.

CAMPA and the Problem of Ecological Compensation

•     The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 provides the statutory framework for managing funds collected for compensatory afforestation.
•     The CAMPA mechanism seeks to compensate for ecological losses associated with diversion of forest land.
•     According to the editorial, approximately 90% of collections are allocated to the respective State CAMPA funds, while 10% goes to the National CAMPA Fund.
•     The problem is that ecological benefits and ecological burdens do not necessarily correspond to the geographical location where funds are collected.
•     A nationally significant ecological service may benefit populations across multiple States.
•     Therefore, ecological compensation should not be viewed solely through a State-wise accounting framework.
•     The National CAMPA Fund could play a stronger role in supporting:

○      Ecologically fragile regions.

○      Regions suffering ecological deficits.

○      Landscape-level restoration.

○      Inter-State ecological projects.

○      Climate-resilience measures.

•     The editorial also raises concerns regarding the utilisation and transparency of the national fund.
•     Effective ecological compensation requires:

○      Transparent allocation.

○      Outcome-based expenditure.

○      Independent monitoring.

○      Public disclosure.

○      Ecological performance indicators.

•     CAMPA should consequently move beyond merely compensating for individual diversion projects and contribute towards broader ecological equity.

Article 21 and the Right to a Healthy Environment

•     Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
•     Indian judicial interpretation has expanded Article 21 to include aspects of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
•     Environmental degradation can directly affect:

○      Human health.

○      Livelihoods.

○      Water security.

○      Food security.

○      Physical safety.

○      Quality of life.

•     Ecological inequality therefore translates into unequal environmental rights.
•     Communities facing greater pollution, climate vulnerability or ecological degradation may experience a lower quality of life.
•     Similarly, communities that conserve forests provide environmental services that benefit populations elsewhere.
•     Articles 14 and 21 can therefore be understood together:

○      Article 14 addresses equality and non-arbitrariness.

○      Article 21 protects life, dignity and environmental well-being.

•     Article 38(2) adds a distributive dimension by directing the State to reduce inequalities between different areas.
•     Together, these provisions can support a constitutional framework for ecological justice.
•     Courts have increasingly intervened in environmental matters, particularly regarding forest diversion, pollution and regulatory compliance.
•     However, the editorial argues that jurisprudence has not sufficiently addressed ecological inequality between States.
•     A stronger constitutional approach would recognise ecologically fragile regions as a distinct category requiring appropriate policy support.
•     This would allow environmental governance to become more equitable, adaptive and region-sensitive.

Towards Asymmetric and Justice-Oriented Ecological Governance

•     India requires an ecological governance framework based on differentiated responsibility and differentiated support.
•     Ecologically fragile States should not be expected to bear national conservation responsibilities without adequate compensation.
•     A future framework should combine:

○      Fiscal transfers.

○      Ecological performance incentives.

○      Sustainable livelihoods.

○      Forest restoration.

○      Community participation.

○      Climate adaptation.

•     Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) can provide financial incentives to communities that protect forests, watersheds and biodiversity.
•     Communities maintaining ecological functions should receive tangible economic benefits.
•     Forest-dependent communities should be treated not merely as beneficiaries but as ecological stewards.
•     Gram Sabhas should receive adequate institutional and technical capacity to manage forest resources sustainably.
•     Environmental regulations should account for regional ecological carrying capacity.
•     Development pathways should therefore differ according to ecological conditions rather than follow a single national template.
•     A Himalayan or Northeastern State may require greater emphasis on:

○      Eco-tourism.

○      Sustainable agriculture.

○      Forest-based livelihoods.

○      Renewable energy.

○      Green infrastructure.

•     Industrialised States should contribute proportionately towards national ecological conservation.
•     National ecological policy should integrate climate justice, inter-generational equity and regional equity.
•     Ultimately, ecological equality should not mean identical treatment.
•     It should mean ensuring that every citizen and region receives a fair opportunity to live in a healthy environment while sharing conservation responsibilities equitably.

Challenges:

•     Unequal ecological burdens: Forest-rich and ecologically fragile States carry national conservation responsibilities without proportionate economic compensation.
•     Uniform policy frameworks: One-size-fits-all environmental regulations may ignore differences in forest distribution, disaster vulnerability, pollution exposure and ecological carrying capacity.
•     Economic opportunity costs: Conservation restrictions can limit industrialisation, infrastructure development, employment generation and fiscal capacity in ecologically sensitive regions.
•     Weak ecological compensation: Existing mechanisms such as CAMPA do not fully redistribute resources according to actual ecological burdens and national benefits.
•     Limited institutional capacity: Gram Sabhas and local communities may have statutory authority but insufficient technical, financial and scientific capacity for adaptive ecological management.
•     Fragmented governance: Forests, biodiversity, climate, tribal welfare and development policies are often administered through separate institutional structures.
•     Insufficient judicial recognition: Environmental jurisprudence has addressed pollution and forest diversion extensively but has not fully developed the concept of inter-State ecological inequality.
•     Transparency concerns: Lack of adequate transparency and outcome-based monitoring can reduce the effectiveness of ecological funds.
•     Rights–conservation tensions: Forest rights, development projects and ecological protection can sometimes come into conflict without adequate participatory mechanisms.
•     Climate change: Increasing extreme weather events are making ecological fragility and disaster risks more pronounced, particularly in mountains, forests and coastal areas.
•     Fiscal constraints: Creating differentiated ecological transfers requires sustained public expenditure and appropriate Centre-State fiscal coordination.
•     Risk of token compensation: Financial transfers without measurable ecological outcomes may become routine subsidies rather than instruments of ecological justice.

Way Forward:

•     Recognise ecological inequality constitutionally: Develop a clearer policy and judicial framework connecting Articles 14, 21 and 38(2) with ecological justice.
•     Adopt differentiated fiscal transfers: Allocate greater resources to States according to indicators such as forest cover, watershed responsibility, biodiversity and climate vulnerability.
•     Strengthen CAMPA: Improve the utilisation, transparency and outcome-based monitoring of National CAMPA resources.
•     Introduce Payment for Ecosystem Services: Communities and States providing nationally valuable ecological services should receive predictable financial incentives.
•     Build Gram Sabha capacity: Provide local institutions with scientific information, technical expertise, financial resources and ecological monitoring tools.
•     Promote adaptive forest governance: Forest management should incorporate continuous monitoring, changing ecological baselines and climate-related risks rather than relying only on static classifications.
•     Integrate development with carrying capacity: Infrastructure and industrial projects should be aligned with the ecological carrying capacity of each region.
•     Reward ecological performance: Introduce measurable indicators for forest regeneration, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and carbon sequestration.
•     Strengthen Centre-State cooperation: Ecological conservation should become a genuine component of cooperative and fiscal federalism.
•     Promote sustainable livelihoods: Forest-dependent communities should receive opportunities in eco-tourism, non-timber forest products, agroforestry and other sustainable sectors.
•     Improve ecological data: Establish transparent, publicly accessible datasets on forest cover, ecological services, environmental risks and State-wise conservation burdens.
•     Mainstream climate justice: National climate policy should recognise that regions contributing substantially to ecological stability may simultaneously face greater development constraints and climate vulnerability.

Conclusion:

Ecological equality is not identical treatment; it is fair treatment of unequal ecological circumstances. Articles 14, 21 and 38(2) provide a constitutional foundation for such an approach. India must move from uniform environmental governance towards asymmetric, compensatory and participatory ecological federalism. Protecting forest-rich regions, empowering communities and fairly distributing conservation costs can simultaneously advance environmental justice, regional development and constitutional equality.

Source: HT

Mains Practice Question:

Ecological inequality increasingly intersects with constitutional equality in India. Discuss how Articles 14, 21 and 38(2), along with the Forest Rights Act and CAMPA framework, can promote ecological justice. Suggest measures to ensure that ecologically fragile States and forest-dependent communities receive equitable fiscal, institutional and developmental support.