Author:- Harpreet Kaur, Maharishi Markandeshwar Deemed to be University
Headline of the Article
Climate Justice and Displacement in the Himalayas: Aftermath of the Joshimath Crisis
To the Point
The 2023 land subsidence crisis in Joshimath, Uttarakhand, brought to national attention the fragility of Himalayan towns and the dangerous intersection of reckless development and climate change. The town, already geologically unstable, began sinking as cracks appeared in hundreds of buildings, displacing over 3,000 residents. Despite early scientific warnings, infrastructure projects like NTPC’s hydroelectric tunnel and the Char Dham road expansion continued in violation of environmental norms. The incident raises serious questions about the Indian government’s failure to protect fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21. It also exposes glaring gaps in legal recognition for climate-induced displacement. The aftermath of Joshimath is not merely a natural tragedy—it is a legal and constitutional failure demanding urgent reforms in environmental regulation, accountability, and rehabilitation frameworks.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Joshimath disaster involves several core legal concepts. The Doctrine of Public Trust was violated when natural resources and fragile ecosystems were exploited for commercial development. The Precautionary Principle was ignored despite known scientific risks, and the Polluter Pays Principle was never applied to the corporate actors potentially responsible. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), meant to evaluate ecological risks, were either inadequate or bypassed. The rights of those affected fall under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life, including the right to shelter, livelihood, and a safe environment. Despite this, displaced residents were not granted protection or recognition as climate refugees under any national law. The continued suffering of the displaced highlights a critical gap in Indian law, as there is no specific legal framework for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) of those affected by environmental displacement, making state accountability and legal reform an urgent necessity.
The Proof
Joshimath, a town located in the Chamoli district of Uttarakhand, lies in seismic Zone V and is built on ancient landslide debris, making it geologically unstable. Yet, over decades, development projects were permitted without heed to ecological limitations. The National Thermal Power Corporation’s Tapovan-Vishnugad hydroelectric project involved tunnel boring through fragile layers, causing underground seepage. Additionally, the Char Dham Highway project resulted in extensive hill-cutting and deforestation, further destabilising the terrain. In January 2023, land began to subside at an alarming rate, and over 800 homes developed deep cracks, forcing mass evacuations. Many scientists and local residents had warned about the town’s declining structural integrity years in advance. However, their concerns were sidelined in the name of economic and religious tourism. This disaster, widely reported and documented, stands as direct proof of the catastrophic outcomes of ignoring environmental science and legal safeguards.
Abstract
The Joshimath land subsidence is a stark example of what happens when ecological warnings are ignored and environmental governance is compromised. Despite its fragile geography, Joshimath saw unregulated development in the form of hydroelectric and road construction projects, without adequate Environmental Impact Assessments or disaster risk mitigation. In early 2023, the town began sinking, displacing thousands and damaging hundreds of homes. This article explores the legal and constitutional implications of the crisis, particularly focusing on the violation of the right to life under Article 21, the failure to apply key environmental law principles, and the absence of legal recognition for climate-induced displacement. It draws upon landmark judgments and legal doctrines to show how the State failed in its duties and argues for the establishment of a climate justice framework that protects vulnerable populations from the dual threat of development and climate change. Joshimath must not become a forgotten tragedy, but rather a wake-up call for sustainable and rights-based governance.
Case Laws (in points)
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991):
The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to access clean water and a pollution-free environment. This right was clearly denied to the residents of Joshimath due to environmental degradation.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
The Court acknowledged that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the fundamental right to life.Joshimath residents, many of whom relied on tourism and agriculture, lost their livelihoods without sufficient state intervention.
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996):
The Supreme Court declared the right to shelter as a fundamental right. The failure of the state to provide permanent housing or adequate compensation to displaced residents of Joshimath violates this principle.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997):
The Court introduced the Doctrine of Public Trust, establishing that the State is the trustee of natural resources and must prevent their misuse. In Joshimath, this doctrine was undermined by unregulated development.
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019):
This judgment emphasized the necessity of cumulative and scientifically rigorous Environmental Impact Assessments, especially in ecologically fragile zones. The absence of such evaluations in Joshimath contributed directly to the disaster.
Conclusion
The disaster in Joshimath marks a watershed moment in India’s environmental history, not only because of the scale of physical damage but due to its legal and constitutional ramifications. It illustrates how unplanned development in ecologically sensitive regions, coupled with administrative negligence and weak environmental regulation, leads to irreversible damage and human suffering. Despite constitutional guarantees under Article 21, residents continue to suffer in the absence of proper rehabilitation, shelter, and livelihood opportunities. Their plight remains unresolved due to the absence of a dedicated legal framework in India for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) in cases of environmental displacement, underscoring the urgent need for state accountability and comprehensive legal reform.
This incident also exposes the structural silence in Indian environmental law when it comes to climate-induced displacement. The absence of recognition for climate refugees or a national policy on ecological rehabilitation leaves vulnerable communities defenceless in the face of growing climate disasters. If India is to uphold its environmental commitments under the Constitution and international law, it must create a statutory framework that prioritises sustainability, community rights, and environmental justice. Joshimath should not remain a cautionary tale—it must serve as a precedent for progressive legislative action and rights-based governance.
FAQS
What caused the land subsidence in Joshimath?
The primary causes were unregulated infrastructure development and the fragile geological composition of the region. Tunneling activities by NTPC for its hydroelectric project and hill-cutting for the Char Dham Highway weakened the soil, leading to underground water seepage and the formation of cracks in buildings. Climate change-related factors like unseasonal rainfall and glacial melt further worsened the situation.
What are the legal rights of Joshimath’s displaced residents?
Residents are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, including the rights to shelter, livelihood, and environmental health. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include dignity and safety. They may approach the High Courts or Supreme Court through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 32, respectively.
What has the government done in response to the crisis?
The government has provided interim relief in the form of temporary camps and financial assistance. However, there is no legally enforceable, long-term rehabilitation plan. Many residents remain without permanent shelter or jobs, and no corporate or official accountability has been established. The overall response lacks transparency, sustainability, and a legal framework for full recovery.
Is NTPC responsible for the crisis?
NTPC’s tunneling activities are widely believed to have contributed to the crisis by disrupting underground water channels and weakening geological structures. Despite expert warnings and public concern, no formal criminal or environmental liability has been assigned. The situation demands an independent investigation and the application of the Polluter Pays Principle for justice and accountability.
Why is the Joshimath crisis important for climate justice in India?
The crisis highlights the urgent need for a legal framework rooted in climate justice, which focuses on the rights of vulnerable communities disproportionately affected by climate change. Joshimath’s residents—who contributed least to environmental degradation—suffered the most.. Joshimath must become a precedent for integrating environmental rights with human rights in governance.
