Digital Environmental Constitutionalism: Reimagining India’s Ecological Governance @ 2047
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 19
- 2 min read
Abhijeet Saran, BBA LLB (Hons.), Symbiosis Law School, Pune
I. Introduction
By 2047 India’s aspiration to become as a Viksit Bharat which represents one of the most important developmental pledges of the twenty- first century. However, this transformative ambition carries an issue that will determine the legitimacy of this revolutionary ambition: can accelerated economic growth remain ecologically sustainable? The solution is not merely environmental. It is constitutional.
India is under ecological constrain that are neither peripheral nor speculative. India continues to be one of the most ecologically sensitive countries in the world, suffering from deforestation, water scarcity, and air pollution all at once. Across North Indian cities temperatures exceeding over 45°C and over 60% of Indian districts at high to extremely high climate risk demonstrated by the summer 2025, the cost of governance failure is being paid in human lives, disproportionately by the marginalized and the poor. Without an ecological vision, India’s 2047 vision is not complete, and without a governance revolution ecological vision is meaningless.
The Environment Protection Act, 1986 possess India’s extensive legislative framework and however country’s regulatory architecture has not been able to translate ecological results from legislative intent. Implemented through structurally fragmented bodies like the Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board, MoEFCC and a maze of clearing authorities. Institutional silos govern environmental governance. A dispute arising from contradictory jurisdictions between Forest Departments, Revenue Authorities, CPCB, SEIAA, and DEIAA was brought before the National Green Tribunal as recently as February 2026 , a live illustration of the fragmentation paralyzing India’s regulatory architecture. Regulatory intervention is still retroactive, dependent on periodic reporting rather than ongoing oversight, and only initiated after harm has occurred. The distance between the statutory mission and the reality of governance is still growing, with legislative intention surpassing institutional delivery. This is not a coincidental failure. It’s architectural.
