Unplanned Urbanisation and the Right to a Healthy Environment: Rethinking Environmental Governance in Himachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh presents an unusually demanding setting for environmental governance because urban growth takes place on steep, geologically fragile and disaster-prone terrain while being driven by tourism, transport infrastructure, housing demand and expanding commercial activity. The resulting legal problem is not simply whether individual projects comply with environmental statutes, but whether the cumulative pattern of urbanisation is compatible with the constitutional obligation to secure a healthy environment. This article examines the relationship between unplanned urbanisation and the right to a healthy environment in Himachal Pradesh, with particular attention to Shimla and the wider Himalayan urban context. It argues that Indian environmental law has already developed the constitutional and doctrinal foundations necessary for an integrated model of ecological urban governance, but those foundations remain institutionally fragmented. Town planning, municipal regulation, environmental clearance, forest protection, disaster management, waste regulation and climate adaptation are commonly administered through separate legal channels even though they operate on the same ecological system. The article analyses Article 21, Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g), the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act 1977, municipal legislation, the Environmental Impact Assessment framework and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal. It particularly examines the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Himachal Pradesh v Yogendera Mohan Sengupta (2024) and M/s Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd v State of Himachal Pradesh (2025), alongside the continuing judicial scrutiny of Himachal's ecological condition. The article proposes a framework of ecological urban governance based on carrying capacity, risk-sensitive zoning, cumulative impact assessment, climate-resilient planning, transparent environmental data, meaningful public participation and enforceable development controls. It concludes that the right to a healthy environment should operate not merely as a remedial right after pollution or disaster occurs, but as a substantive planning principle governing where, how and at what intensity urban development may lawfully occur in a fragile Himalayan state.