Justice Nagarathna calls for making fragile, sensitive ecosystems absolute no-go zones

Highlighting the stress on fragile ecosystems placed by unchecked tourism, Supreme Court judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, on Saturday (March 28, 2026) said governments must refrain from approving wildlife safaris in forest sanctuaries and make critical habitats absolute no-go zones.

“There is a need to seriously consider declaring certain areas as inviolable. Regions such as biologically significant areas, heritage sites, bio-corridors, and eco-sensitive zones play a critical role in harbouring biodiversity, regulating local ecosystems, and mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The Supreme Court judge was delivering the Justice S.B. Sinha 4th Endowment Memorial Lecture at Ranchi on ‘Environmental Justice and Climate Change: How courts can lead the way forward’.

Specifically pointing to the environmental perils of tourism, the judge indicated that governments must categorically deny permission to human pleasure activities in sensitive zones.

“While public demand, for instance, for tourism continues to increase, unchecked tourism can place severe stress on fragile ecosystems and disrupt wildlife habitats. Governments must therefore refrain from approving them altogether. I mean tourism such as wildlife safaris in forest sanctuaries,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The top court judge said the impacts of environmental degradation, like climate change, affect different strata of society differently. Environmental issues are deeply intertwined with questions of social, economic, and political justice. Environmental harms are rarely distributed evenly; instead, they tend to disproportionately affect the poor and the marginalised, Justice Nagarathna pointed out.

“Pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion do not affect all persons equally. They tend to impact the poor, the marginalised and often those least responsible for damage. In this sense, environmental adjudication must, of necessity, be affected by taking note of equity, fairness, and justice. In recent decades, courts across jurisdictions have emerged as central actors in giving concrete meaning to the idea of environmental justice,” she said.

The judge said the judiciary was compelled to step in and drive environmental governance due to legislative gaps, regulatory inertia, and rapidly evolving environmental risk. Courts have increasingly been called upon to protect ecological integrity while balancing competing developmental and economic considerations.

Scientific uncertainty and accelerating ecological crises have compelled courts to rethink conventional modes of legal reasoning and to develop principles that are preventive, precautionary, and responsive to context, Justice Nagarathna underlined the challenges in environmental jurisprudence.

“Environmental questions are never merely about air, water, or forests in isolation. They are also about people – about how the consequences of environmental decisions are felt differently across regions, communities, and generations. Some bear the brunt of degradation more sharply, while others enjoy the benefits of development more fully. This unevenness invites us to think not only about protection, but about fairness too,” Justice Nagarathna said.