Ecological inequality is now one of the most significant, yet least recognised, forms of inequality in India. Geographic variation may explain this asymmetry, but it cannot justify constitutional inequality; when unequal ecological burdens shape people’s lives so differently, the issue becomes constitutional. Article 14 of the Constitution has two connotations: equality before law, which prohibits arbitrariness, and equal protection of laws, which requires differentiated support for unequal situations. Article 38(2) directs the State to reduce inequalities “among groups of people residing in different areas.” Ecological inequality fits squarely within this mandate.

The Himalayan, Northeastern, and Western Ghat regions carry far higher ecological fragility, greater watershed responsibility, and a significantly heavier disaster mitigation burden than the plains. This mismatch between the constitutional principles and ecological reality has created a blind spot India can no longer afford.

Forest-rich states shoulder ecological responsibilities whose benefits flow to the entire nation. They preserve carbon sinks, stabilise monsoon systems, and maintain biodiversity. Industrialised states enjoy higher fiscal returns with lower ecological burdens. Applying identical rules to both produces outcomes that are not only inefficient but constitutionally infirm. This asymmetry........

© hindustantimes