The Hindu Editorial Analysis
06 February 2026
The fading of India’s environmental jurisprudence
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition, Page no.-10 )
Topic: GS Paper – GS 2 & GS 3 : GS 3: Environment, Environmental Impact Assessment, Sustainable Development , GS 2: Judiciary, Constitution, Fundamental Duties
Context
India’s environmental jurisprudence stands at a critical crossroads. From the Aravalli ranges to coastal mangroves, recent judicial and policy developments indicate a gradual yet systematic dilution of ecological protection. Through selective interpretations of law, relaxed environmental clearances and an increasing tilt towards development-centric reasoning, constitutional safeguards for the environment appear to be weakening — raising serious concerns for intergenerational justice and ecological sustainability.
Dilution of environmental safeguards
A key turning point came with changes to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework, allowing non-coal mining projects to proceed with limited disclosure on location and area. The Supreme Court’s recall of its own progressive judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025), which had banned retrospective environmental clearances, further accelerated this dilution.
Within months, the judiciary shifted from precaution to permissiveness, signalling a broader retreat from earlier principles that had prioritised ecological protection over administrative convenience.
From mountains to mangroves
Recent cases reflect a consistent pattern. Judicial sanctioning of mangrove destruction for infrastructure projects, road expansion in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem, and mining in ecologically sensitive zones illustrate how environmental health is being subordinated to developmental imperatives.
The Aravalli range — historically recognised as the ecological backbone of north-western India — exemplifies this shift. Despite earlier judicial acknowledgements of its role in groundwater recharge, biodiversity conservation and desertification control, the Court’s recent reliance on a height-based definition has excluded vast ecologically critical areas from protection.
Aravallis: from ecosystem to elevation
The acceptance of a rigid 100-metre elevation criterion marks a departure from ecosystem-based understanding. Hills and ridges at lower altitudes play a crucial role in hydrology, soil stability and biodiversity, especially in semi-arid landscapes.
By privileging elevation over ecological function, judicial interpretation has stripped large portions of the Aravallis of statutory and judicial protection. This contradicts earlier reliance on the precautionary principle and undermines constitutional commitments under Article 48A.
Constitutional implications
The right to a clean and healthy environment, read into Article 21, is directly implicated. Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect and improve the environment, risks becoming symbolic rather than operative.
Courts have shown enthusiasm in enforcing social legislation but appear reluctant to extend similar rigour to ecological exclusion. Discriminatory protection based on elevation or administrative convenience violates the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and weakens environmental rule of law.
Judicial leniency and regulatory erosion
Environmental dilution is not confined to the Aravallis. Over the years, courts and regulatory bodies have increasingly relied on mitigation and post-facto clearances rather than strict enforcement.
Despite clear judicial pronouncements against regularisation of illegal mining and environmental offences, procedural leniency has become routine. Environmental compliance risks being reduced to a checklist exercise, eroding deterrence and accountability.
Mangroves and urban ecology
Urban coastal ecosystems present stark evidence of this trend. Mangroves, which act as flood buffers, carbon sinks and biodiversity reservoirs, have been sacrificed on the promise of compensatory afforestation — despite scientific consensus that mature mangrove ecosystems cannot be replicated elsewhere.
Infrastructure projects in Uttarakhand and coastal cities reveal a pattern where ecological risks are balanced away against strategic or economic interests, often with irreversible consequences.
Power asymmetry and procedural unfairness
Large corporations and infrastructure projects navigate environmental clearance processes with relative ease, while objections are often dismissed as obstructive. Hearings are curtailed, transparency diluted and public participation weakened.
Such disproportionate access undermines equality before law and public trust. Environmental governance, when perceived as privileging economic power, risks losing democratic legitimacy.
A retreat from judicial custodianship
Historically, Indian courts acted as custodians of environmental rights, advancing doctrines such as public trust and intergenerational equity. Recent trends suggest a narrowing of constitutional imagination, where ecological protection yields to administrative expediency.
When courts approve definitions or clearances that facilitate environmental degradation, they depart from their own jurisprudential legacy.
Conclusion
India’s environmental jurisprudence is experiencing a slow but visible erosion. Judicial leniency, reductionist interpretations and procedural shortcuts threaten constitutional mandates and ecological resilience.
At a time of climate vulnerability and ecological stress, courts must reclaim their role as guardians of environmental rights. Ease of business cannot justify ease of environmental destruction. Restoring scientific reasoning, procedural fairness and constitutional fidelity is essential — not only to protect nature, but to preserve the rule of law itself.