Answer

Introduction

By framing environmental protection as a matter of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has moved beyond its traditional role of dispute resolution into shaping public policy. While this judicial intervention has been praised for addressing regulatory failures, it has also been criticized for blurring legal boundaries, creating an enduring tension between ecological urgency and the demands of legal certainty and institutional restraint.

Body

Lauded for Filling Governance Gaps

• Recognition of Rights: The Court expanded the “Right to Life” (Article 21) to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, bridging the gap between human rights and ecology.
  Eg: Court has recognised Right to Clean Environment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Enforcing Absolute Liability: The judiciary introduced the “Absolute Liability” principle, ensuring that hazardous industries are liable for damages regardless of negligence, filling a void in statutory tort law.
  Eg: This principle was famously established following the M. C. Mehta v. Union of India ( Oleum Gas Leak case), setting a global precedent for industrial accountability.
• Applying Global Principles: The Court institutionalized the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” into Indian law, compelling administrative action where statutes were silent.
  Eg: These principles were central to the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case, mandating the cleanup of river Palar by polluting tanneries.
• Protecting the Commons: Through the “Public Trust Doctrine,” the Court asserted that natural resources like air and water are held by the state as a trustee for the public, preventing their private appropriation.
  Eg: In the MC Mehta v Kamal Nath Case, 1997 (Span Motel case), the Court quashed the lease of forest land, reinforcing that certain resources are “beyond the reach of private ownership”.
• Institutional Innovation: The Court often creates independent committees or directs the executive to establish specialized bodies when administrative lethargy persists.
  Eg: The creation of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) was a direct result of judicial intervention to manage Delhi’s air quality.
• Intergenerational Equity: The judiciary has championed the rights of future generations, ensuring that current developmental needs do not permanently deplete natural capital.
  Eg: In the Godavarman case, the Court’s continuous mandamus helped preserve vast tracts of forest land from indiscriminate mining and diversion.

Criticised for Creating Legal Uncertainty

• Policy Overreach: Judicial mandates often bypass the legislative process, leading to “court-room governance” that lacks technical depth and democratic deliberation.
  Eg: Critics argue that the SC’s ban on firecrackers or specific vehicular models creates sudden economic shocks for industries without legislative warning.
• Economic Unpredictability: Sudden, “proactive” rulings can halt major infrastructure projects, creating a climate of risk for both domestic and foreign investors.
  Eg: The cancellation of coal blocks and the long-drawn-out mining bans in Goa and Karnataka led to significant revenue and job losses.
• Dilution of Expertise: By often relying on self-appointed committees over statutory bodies like the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Court risks compromising on scientific rigor.
• Implementation Deficit: Many “green rulings” remain on paper because the Court lacks the machinery to enforce its orders against a reluctant executive.
  Eg: Despite several orders on cleaning the Ganga (Ganga Action Plan), the river remains significantly polluted, highlighting the limits of judicial decrees.
• Polycentric Challenges: Judicial decisions on the environment often affect multiple sectors (energy, transport, housing) simultaneously, leading to unintended negative externalities.
• Inconsistency in Rulings: The lack of a clear “Green Jurisprudence” framework leads to conflicting orders by different benches, making it difficult for businesses to plan long-term compliance.

Conclusion

The way forward lies in transitioning from “Judicial Activism” to “Judicial Restraint with Rigor.” The Supreme Court should act as a “catalyst” for the executive rather than a substitute. By strengthening statutory bodies like the NGT and ensuring that green rulings are backed by comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and economic cost-benefit analyses, India can achieve its 2047 goals without compromising on legal predictability or ecological integrity.

DOWNLOAD PDF