The Hindu Editorial Analysis
09 January 2026
Top court’s green governance, cause for uncertainty
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper – GS-2 & GS-3 : Judiciary, Environmental Governance, Separation of Powers, Sustainable Development
Context
Over the past decade, the Supreme Court of India has increasingly shifted from reviewing the legality of administrative action to issuing forward-looking, regulatory-style directions in environmental matters. This evolution has occurred particularly where statutory regulators have been slow, fragmented, or ineffective. However, instead of merely correcting procedural lapses and restoring regulatory discipline, the Court has often continued to occupy a managerial role, issuing ongoing directions across cases. The editorial argues that while motivated by environmental protection, this approach has introduced uncertainty, weakened regulatory institutions, and blurred constitutional boundaries.
Core Issue
The central issue is whether judicial intervention in environmental governance has crossed from constitutional oversight into de facto regulation, thereby creating instability for regulators, governments, and affected stakeholders.
The concern is not judicial intent, but the institutional consequences of courts substituting for regulators rather than strengthening them.
Rulings and Policy Shifts
Several landmark instances illustrate this pattern:
- Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs)
- June 2022: The Court mandated a uniform one-kilometre ESZ around protected areas.
- April 2023: The rule was diluted where ESZ notifications already existed, acknowledging implementation challenges faced by States.
- Diesel Vehicle Restrictions in NCR
- December 2015: Blanket ban on registration of diesel vehicles above 2,000 cc.
- August 2016: Ban lifted and replaced with a compensatory charge.
- 2025: Fresh restrictions on old diesel and petrol vehicles, later narrowed to vehicles below Bharat Stage-IV norms.
- Firecracker Regulations
- Near-total bans imposed due to air pollution were later relaxed around festivals, citing enforcement and public order constraints.
In each case, broad rules were articulated first and then repeatedly modified, creating regulatory flux.
From Legality to Consequences
The editorial notes a shift in judicial reasoning:
- Earlier emphasis on legality and statutory compliance,
- Increasing focus on policy consequences and fallout.
In Vanshakti v. Union of India (May 2025), the Court ruled against ex post facto environmental clearances, only to revisit this stance months later in review, citing concerns over disruption of ongoing economic activity. This approach treats doctrinal statements as starting points rather than settled law.
The Issue of Expertise
Expertise has emerged as both a justification and a source of contention.
- In the Aravalli mining case, the Court adopted a unified definition of the Aravalli hills based on expert committee findings, only to later suspend the order and constitute another committee due to concerns over unintended legal effects.
- Similarly, uniform ESZ buffers initially appeared decisive but failed to account for ecological and geographical diversity across landscapes.
The Court has relied on expert inputs but has also questioned and replaced them, reinforcing uncertainty.
Judicial Approval and Its Consequences
Where the Court effectively acts as an approving authority, the consequences are most problematic:
- Project proponents and governments approach the Court even before statutory processes conclude.
- Early judicial approval confers a sense of finality, discouraging later public challenge.
- When courts modify or relax rules, they also reshape who is heard and what evidence is considered, potentially undermining participatory environmental decision-making.
As environmental law practitioners note, early judicial entry into approval processes can unintentionally smother meaningful review elsewhere.
Continuing Mandamus and Instability
Many environmental disputes remain trapped in continuing mandamus frameworks:
- Serial interim orders,
- Committee reports,
- Affidavits and repeated modifications.
While this allows flexibility, it often comes at the cost of predictability and stability. Regulated actors face negotiable rules instead of firm standards, while governments juggle parallel decision-making structures.
Need for Stability and Institutional Discipline
The editorial argues that the Court should adopt a steadier approach:
- Protect the environment by disciplining regulators, not replacing them.
- Clearly specify thresholds for when judicial managerial directions will be issued.
- Insist on time-bound regulatory action, supported by reasons and public data.
- Retain judicial review over legality and procedure, rather than substantive policy design.
Clear standards would reduce uncertainty and restore confidence in environmental governance.
Way Forward
Judicial intervention should aim to:
- Reinforce statutory institutions,
- Minimise sweeping, uniform rules that invite exceptions,
- Clearly outline evidentiary and feasibility criteria for modifying directions.
This would allow:
- Regulators to function with authority,
- Governments to avoid fragmented compliance,
- Citizens to understand where and how to contest environmentally harmful activity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s commitment to environmental protection is unquestionable. However, when judicial governance substitutes for regulatory governance, it risks creating uncertainty rather than sustainability. Environmental protection is best served not by continuous judicial management, but by stable rules, accountable regulators, and clear constitutional boundaries.
By recalibrating its role—from regulator to constitutional guardian—the Court can protect both the environment and the rule of law.