Syllabus: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.
Shift in Supreme Court’s Role
- Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has moved beyond legality review to forward-looking regulation.
- This shift emerged as regulators failed, drawing the Court into a managerial and supervisory role.
- Instead of correcting regulatory processes, the Court often substituted itself for regulators.
- Prolonged involvement through continuing mandamus has created uncertainty for all stakeholders.
Key Judicial Interventions and Revisions
- Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ):
- June 2022 order mandated minimum one-kilometre ESZ around protected areas.
- April 2023 modification exempted areas with existing notifications due to implementation difficulties.
- Diesel and Petrol Vehicles:
- December 2015 ban on diesel vehicles above 2,000 cc in Delhi-NCR.
- August 2016 relaxation with a compensatory charge.
- In 2025, protection for older vehicles narrowed to those below Bharat Stage-IV.
- Firecrackers:
- Near-total bans imposed due to air pollution, later relaxed for festivals and “green crackers”.
- These shifts show the Court beginning with broad prohibitions, then narrowing them citing enforcement realities.
Doctrine versus Consequences
- In May 2025 (Vanashakti case), the Court held ex post facto clearances violated environmental principles.
- By November 2025, this position was recalled, citing disruption to ongoing economic activity.
- Doctrinal clarity often became secondary to managing economic and social fallout.
Role and Limits of Expertise
- Expert committees have guided decisions, such as defining Aravalli hills for mining control.
- Subsequent concerns led to orders being kept in abeyance and new committees constituted.
- Uniform rules, like ESZ buffers, ignored ecological and geographical diversity, inviting resistance.
- The Court’s fluctuating reliance on expertise has resulted in policy U-turns.
Impact on Public Participation
- Early judicial approvals force project proponents to approach the Court prematurely.
- This creates a false sense of finality, discouraging later statutory and public challenges.
- Judicial entry reshapes who is heard and what evidence matters.
Need for Stability and Course Correction
- Frequent interim orders correct direction but undermine regulatory certainty.
- The Court should discipline regulators through time-bound actions, transparency, and public data.
- Avoiding sweeping rules and clarifying modification thresholds can reduce uncertainty.
- A steadier approach would ensure clear rules, accountable governance, and meaningful public contestation.