Reconciling the Right to Development with Ecological Debt: Constitutional Economics of Climate Governance in India

Rapid industrial and urban expansion in emerging economies has intensified the tension between economic
development and environmental protection. While global frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals
emphasize sustainability, constitutional governance has often treated development and ecological protection as
competing priorities. However, recent judicial developments in India between 2024 and 2026 suggest a gradual shift in
this understanding. The Supreme Court of India has increasingly emphasized that ecological stability is not merely an
environmental concern but a necessary condition for sustainable economic development. This paper examines this shift
through the lens of constitutional economics, analyzing how environmental costs are beginning to be internalized within the
constitutional interpretation of the Right to Development. Drawing on recent decisions such as M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union
of India and the 2026 Sangrur Cement litigation, the paper identifies three emerging trends: the recognition of climate
stability as essential for protecting life and dignity under Article 21, aligning with SDG 13 (Climate Action); increasing
judicial scrutiny of environmentally destructive forms of “mal-development” affecting urban ecosystems relevant to SDG
11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); and the growing recognition of ecological debt and intergenerational equity
in constitutional reasoning. The paper argues that these developments indicate a gradual transition from an extractive
model of development toward a constitutional framework that integrates economic growth with long-term ecological
sustainability. This paper contributes to debates on sustainable development by linking constitutional jurisprudence with
environmental economics. By introducing the concept of ecological debt into the analysis of the Right to Development, the
study demonstrates how recent Indian Supreme Court decisions are beginning to internalize environmental costs within
constitutional governance. The paper further connects these developments with the policy objectives of SDG 11 and SDG
13, offering a framework for integrating sustainability considerations into constitutional decision-making.