The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India while revoking the approval granted by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling the existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa) observed that -
“Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement. While applying the principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, Courts are required to balance development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable development based on inter-generational equity. While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.”
The Court also talked about the ‘ precautionary principle ’ as an essential feature of sustainable development. The principle is based on choosing the least harmful activity to the environment.
The Supreme Court further mentioned that, “ A situation may arise where there may be irreparable damage to the environment after an activity is allowed to go ahead and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest . This Court held that in case of a doubt, protection of the environment would have precedence over the economic interest. It was further held that precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented even on reasonable suspicion. Further, this Court emphasises in the said judgment that it is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.”