Justice Surya Kant calls for Indo–Sri Lankan ‘guardianship’ of Indian Ocean
Justice Surya Kant advocates for an Indo-Sri Lankan partnership focused on environmental cooperation, urging a joint effort to protect marine ecosystems.
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant, who is set to take over as Chief Justice of India next month, on Wednesday called for a reimagined Indo-Sri Lankan partnership as a “collective guardianship of the Indian Ocean commons”, where cooperation is measured “not in treaties signed, but in ecosystems restored and communities made resilient.”
Delivering a lecture at the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, Justice Kant said the time had come for the two countries to pioneer a regional model of environmental constitutionalism, recognising that “certain imminent environmental rights and duties transcend borders.”
Proposing a framework for sustained ecological cooperation, he suggested the creation of a Joint Commission on Marine Ecology, empowered to issue ecological advisories; the establishment of data-sharing protocols for pollution and fisheries management; and judicial workshops under BIMSTEC to evolve common interpretive standards for environmental rights.
“Environmental cooperation between India and Sri Lanka is not a matter of charity or diplomacy -- it is a matter of survival. The Bay of Bengal does not divide us; it binds us through a shared ecological fate,” Justice Kant said.
Describing the Indian Ocean as a centuries-old connector of culture and ecology, Justice Kant said the two countries’ shared geography now imposes “a collective responsibility” to protect their fragile marine ecosystems.
“The seas between India and Sri Lanka were once arteries of exchange -- of faith, culture and ideas. Today, they are also conduits of shared vulnerability,” said the judge, pointing to rising sea levels, overfishing and pollution that threaten biodiversity and livelihoods on both sides.
He identified the Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar as biodiversity hotspots facing “severe stress,” saying destructive trawling and unregulated coastal development have led to ecosystem collapse. “The confrontation between Indian trawlers and Sri Lankan fishers epitomises a deeper ecological tragedy—competition for an exhausted resource base,” he noted.
Justice Kant said while regional mechanisms such as BIMSTEC and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) have recognised the link between environmental security and stability, the absence of an integrated transboundary governance mechanism continues to hinder progress.
“Environmental impact assessments rarely take cross-border effects into account,” lamented Justice Kant, calling for judicial and civil-society oversight to fill institutional gaps and ensure accountability.
He highlighted the evolving jurisprudence of environmental rights in both countries, noting that the Indian Supreme Court has recognised the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life under Article 21, and that the Sri Lankan Supreme Court has upheld doctrines of public trust and intergenerational equity, most notably in the Eppawela phosphate mining case.
“These judgments illustrate a converging moral imagination about environmental stewardship…In the absence of robust regional institutions, courts become de facto arenas for transnational accountability,” he said.
Justice Kant also announced that the judges of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice P Padman Surasena, are scheduled to visit India in December 2025 or January 2026, expressing hope that the visit would “strengthen judicial dialogue and institutional collaboration.”
He said the meeting could help formalise steps toward the proposed Joint Commission on Marine Ecology and structured data-sharing systems between the two nations.
Calling for universities, legal institutes and civil society to act as “transnational epistemic communities,” Justice Kant urged greater public engagement to drive environmental cooperation and awareness.
“The judiciary, through its moral authority and interpretive ability, has shown how justice can be ecological, intergenerational, and regional. What remains is for policy frameworks to match this judicial vision,” he underscored.
