"Profit should not be allowed to pretend it stands alone," Justice B V Nagarathna of India's Supreme Court declared in a powerful call for corporate environmental accountability during remarks in Jharkhand, one of India's most resource-rich yet economically struggling states.
Speaking at an event in the mineral-rich state that supplies much of India's coal, iron ore, and other resources, Justice Nagarathna laid out a vision of environmental justice that places corporate responsibility at its center. Her remarks, covered by The Indian Express, come as Jharkhand exemplifies India's sharpest contradiction: abundant natural wealth coexisting with grinding poverty.
In India, as across the subcontinent, scale and diversity make simple narratives impossible—and fascinating. Jharkhand—carved out of Bihar in 2000 to give India's adivasi (indigenous) communities greater autonomy—holds some of the world's largest deposits of iron ore, coal, copper, and bauxite. Yet it ranks among India's poorest states, with over one-third of its 38 million people living below the poverty line.
The state's adivasi communities, who make up roughly 26% of the population, have borne the brunt of extractive industries. Displacement from ancestral lands, contaminated water supplies, destroyed forests, and respiratory illnesses from pollution have accompanied the mining boom that enriches corporations and fills state coffers—but rarely reaches those whose lands are mined.
Justice Nagarathna's remarks signal growing judicial recognition of this imbalance. "The profit motive must be reconciled with environmental sustainability and social justice," she stated, calling for companies operating in resource-extraction zones to be held accountable not just for environmental damage but for the social costs imposed on local communities.
The context is particularly sharp in Jharkhand, where tensions between development and environmental protection have repeatedly erupted into protests. The state's Protected Areas Network covers only about 3.5% of its territory, among the lowest in India, while mining leases cover vast swaths of what was once dense sal forest.
Adivasi activists have long argued that mining companies extract billions in value while the communities displaced by operations receive minimal compensation and face destroyed livelihoods. The Forest Rights Act of 2006, meant to recognize adivasi land rights, has been poorly implemented in mineral-rich states where commercial interests hold greater sway.
Justice Nagarathna's call for accountability comes as India wrestles with balancing its growth ambitions against environmental and social costs. The country aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2070 while simultaneously expanding infrastructure and lifting hundreds of millions into the middle class—goals that require enormous amounts of steel, cement, and energy, much of it sourced from states like Jharkhand.
"We cannot allow the continuation of a model where corporations extract, profit, and leave behind devastation," Justice Nagarathna emphasized. She called for stronger monitoring mechanisms, mandatory environmental restoration, and genuine consultation with affected communities—not mere procedural compliance.
The Supreme Court has increasingly emerged as a forum for environmental battles in India, with recent judgments strengthening community rights over forest lands and tightening environmental clearance processes. Justice Nagarathna's remarks suggest the Court may take a more expansive view of corporate accountability, potentially requiring companies to internalize costs they've long externalized onto vulnerable communities.
For the adivasi families living in the shadow of open-pit mines and coal-fired plants, judicial rhetoric must translate into tangible protections. The question is whether India's legal system can compel a development model that doesn't sacrifice its most marginalized communities on the altar of GDP growth—or whether profit will continue to pretend it stands alone.
