Regulatory failures in environmental governance have pushed the Supreme Court into continuing mandamus, expanding judicial oversight into quasi-managerial directions, resulting in regulatory uncertainty and institutional instability.
Related Concepts
- Separation of Powers: Separation of Powers under Article 50 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) envisages distinct roles for the Executive (policy formulation and implementation) and the Judiciary (review of executive and legislative actions), but in practice, this boundary has become increasingly blurred.
- Continuing Mandamus: It is a legal tool in which the Court keeps a case open for several years to monitor implementation and progress (e.g., the Godavarman forest case).
- This practice is considered the foundation of the Court’s managerial or supervisory role over governance.
- Judicial Activism: Judicial activism refers to situations in which courts nudge or push the government to fulfil its constitutional and legal duties.
- Judicial Overreach: It occurs when courts effectively take over functions that are meant to be performed by the executive or legislature.
Shift in the Supreme Court’s Role in Environmental Governance
- From Judicial Review to Managerial Governance: Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of India has moved from reviewing the legality of administrative decisions to issuing forward-looking directions that resemble regulatory functions in important environmental cases.
- Trigger of the Shift: This shift has occurred across several matters in which statutory regulators failed to perform their duties, prompting the Court to assume a managerial role.
- Compounding the Problem: Instead of correcting the regulator’s processes and stepping back, the Court has often continued to substitute itself for the regulator.
- Consequences of Continuing Mandamus: The Court’s tendency to remain involved through continuing mandamus across multiple domains has consequences for regulated actors, governments, and the public, and therefore needs to be tempered.
| Case Studies |
Description |
| Case Study 1- Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) |
- Initial Uniform Rule: In June 2022, the Court directed that all protected areas across India must have an eco-sensitive zone of at least one kilometre from their boundaries.
- Subsequent Dilution: In April 2023, the Court modified this direction and stated that the rule would not apply where the Environment Ministry had already issued ESZ notifications.
- Reason for Change: The modification was partly based on the States’ arguing that a blanket one-kilometre rule was difficult to implement due to different topographies across India.
|
| Case Study 2- Diesel Vehicles in Delhi-NCR |
- Blanket Ban: In December 2015, the Court banned the registration of private diesel cars and sport utility vehicles with an engine capacity of 2,000 cc or more in the Delhi-NCR.
- Replacement with Compensatory Charge: By August 2016, the Court lifted the ban and replaced it with a compensatory green cess i.e., 1%–2% of the ex-showroom price.
- Later Directions: In 2025, the Court initially granted broad protection against coercive action for all diesel and petrol vehicles older than 10 and 15 years, respectively, but later narrowed it to apply only to vehicles below the Bharat Stage-IV standard.
|
| Case Study 3- The Firecracker Ban |
- Near-Total Bans: The Court has at times imposed near-total bans on firecrackers in the NCR due to concerns about air pollution.
- Festival-Time Relaxations: The Court has also relaxed restrictions around specific festivals and allowed limited categories such as “green crackers”.
- Justification for Relaxation: In both strict and relaxed phases, the Court cited enforcement constraints and public order realities.
|
|
Concerns Arising
|
| The Conflict- Principle Vs Economy |
- Shift in Judicial Justification: The Court’s justification often shifts between strict legality and practical consequences.
- Vanashakti vs Union of India: In May 2025, the Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (permissions granted after construction) are illegal.
- In November 2025, the Court recalled its earlier strict position.
- Reason for the Change: The majority judgment was concerned that enforcing the earlier ruling would disrupt ongoing commercial activity.
|
| The Expertise Challenge |
- Expertise as a Source of Dispute: Expertise becomes a point of contention because judges are trained as legal experts and not as ecologists or technical specialists.
- Example of Aravalli Judgement: In the Aravalli matter decided in November 2020, the Court adopted a unified definition of “Aravalli hills” based on the recommendations of a committee.
- Within weeks, the Court placed the order on hold because the definition produced unintended legal consequences.
- Relying on ad hoc committees without thorough stakeholder consultation leads to both scientific errors and legal errors.
|
| Court as Approving Authority |
- Bypassing Statutory Regulators: Project proponents and governments increasingly approach the Supreme Court for permissions before statutory authorities (e.g., the National Green Tribunal ) to complete their examination of projects.
- Reason for Approaching the Supreme Court Early: Securing an approval or observation from the Supreme Court creates a perception of finality, discouraging further scrutiny by lower or specialised forums.
- Danger to Judicial Review: This practice weakens meaningful judicial review in lower courts and specialised tribunals.
- Impact on Citizens’ Rights: Citizens lose an effective opportunity to challenge projects because the highest court has already “managed” or influenced the approval process, making later challenges difficult.
|
Way Forward
- Restore Regulatory Primacy of the State: Environmental protection should be achieved by compelling the State to perform its regulatory duties effectively, rather than by the Court substituting itself for regulatory institutions.
- Thresholds for Judicial Intervention: The Court should specify objective conditions under which it will issue managerial or supervisory directions, to prevent routine governance through judicial orders.
- Time-Bound Regulatory Action: Courts should require regulators to act within fixed timelines and place verified, publicly available data from concerned Ministries on record.
- Avoid Blanket and Immediate Rules: The Court should refrain from imposing sweeping, one-size-fits-all directions and must clearly justify any exceptions based on stated practical or legal constraints.
Conclusion
A restrained, process-focused judiciary can strengthen environmental protection by enforcing regulatory accountability, ensuring policy stability, and safeguarding citizens’ right to challenge environmental harm through proper legal channels.
9 Jan 2026
.png)
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
