Top’s Court Green Governance: Cause For Uncertainty

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.