The Supreme Court recently observed that corporate entities had a responsibility to protect wildlife and the environment as part of their corporate social responsibility. While rejecting an appeal against judgments restricting the activities of companies in ecologically sensitive areas, the top court observed that “the law acknowledges that as human beings, we cannot ‘own’ or ‘use’ the environment ‘for our purpose’. The corporate ‘duty’ must evolve from merely protecting the shareholders to protecting the ecosystem that we all inhabit.” The court stressed that it was a fundamental, constitutional duty of every citizen to protect “the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife”.
The Supreme Court expanded on CSR to clearly make its point. It said where “mining, power generation, or infrastructure threaten the habitat of endangered species, the ‘polluter pays’ principle mandates that the company bears the cost of species recovery. CSR funds must, therefore, be directed towards ex-situ and in-situ conservation efforts to prevent extinction.”
The court has laid down a framework for how corporate entities must act when their activities deleteriously affect flora and fauna — they are not to wilfully destroy natural habitats and when their activities do have an effect, they must act to repair the damage to the extent possible.
The court’s order can also be seen as an exhortation to all citizens to help preserve ecosystems and the environment in general by, first, not wilfully harming these in the discharge of their duties and, second, being vigilant in preventing environmental destruction.
This brings into focus the larger issue of widespread habitat destruction leading to man-animal conflicts. But we will focus here on something that lies behind the entire gamut of issues that has been referenced above. What was glaring in its absence in what the top court said was a reference to the State and its role in protecting ecosystems, habitats, wildlife, and species in general, especially given that we are in the thick of what is — not entirely unreasonably — being called the sixth great extinction, an anthropogenic phenomenon in which we are seeing the loss of all varieties of species at an accelerating rate that is unparalleled.
Corporate entities and citizens must do their bit, but not everyone will unless there is a system of laws and enforcement alongside incentives that will force or encourage them to behave more responsibly. We cannot reduce the problem either to a matter of individual conscience or to shaming strategies. To do this, the entire apparatus of the State, including the judiciary at every level, must get out of the tired and discredited paradigm in which environment and development are pitted against each other. In fact, research has demonstrated that it has become commonsensical that all life is interconnected. Sapient humans cannot exist in isolation by crashing and burning life on the planet.
This suggests that the State, which has near plenipotentiary powers, must cease unthinkingly prioritising ‘development’ and infrastructure projects at the cost of ecosystems. If not, then the judiciary must stop it. Corporates do need permission to mine, generate power and so on after all.
Unfortunately, this has not necessarily been the case in recent times. In July 2025, for instance, the National Board for Wildlife cleared 32 defence-related projects that entailed the diversion of land from protected areas and ecologically sensitive zones in Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Ladakh, and Sikkim. The damage would be incalculable and the decision is unconscionable.
National security cannot unthinkingly trump ecological security because the future of life itself is at stake. Any number of alibis can be manufactured to privilege ‘development’ and infrastructures of various kinds. The judiciary must step in to rein in the State in cases of ecological destruction.