Supreme Court's Environmental Rulings: Balancing Governance and Regulatory Stability
SC's environmental interventions, while well-intentioned, can create uncertainty; state regulation is key.
Photo by George Pagan III
Editorial Analysis
The author argues that the Supreme Court's increasing role in environmental governance, while well-intentioned, can create uncertainty and that the Court should focus on disciplining the state back into regulation.
Main Arguments:
- The Supreme Court has increasingly moved from reviewing the legality of administrative decisions to issuing forward-looking directions mimicking regulation in important environmental cases.
- The Court's justification has often shifted from being rooted in legality to that in consequences.
- The Court's early entry into the approval process can smother meaningful judicial review in other fora.
Counter Arguments:
- Fragmented enforcement, delayed notifications, poor monitoring, and ad hoc exemptions left gaps that invited judicial intervention.
- The Court has used expert inputs to compensate for its limits but has also contested expertise.
Conclusion
Policy Implications
The article discusses the Supreme Court of India's increasing role in environmental governance, where it issues forward-looking directions that mimic regulation. This shift has occurred due to regulators failing to fulfill their duties. The author argues that the Court's tendency to remain involved in these matters has consequences for regulated actors, the state, and the people.
Examples include rulings on eco-sensitive zones (ESZs), diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR, and firecrackers. The Court's justification has shifted from legality to consequences, and its use of expertise has been a source of support and dispute. The author suggests the Court should protect the environment by disciplining the state back into regulation, specifying thresholds for managerial directions, and insisting on time-bound regulatory action with reasons and public data.
Key Facts
June 2022: SC mandated 1km ESZ around protected areas
April 2023: SC modified ESZ rule where MoEF had issued notifications
December 2015: SC banned registration of 2000cc+ diesel cars in Delhi-NCR
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper 2: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice & International relations - Role of Judiciary in Environmental Governance
GS Paper 3: Environment, Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment - Supreme Court's interventions in environmental protection
Potential question types: Analytical questions on judicial activism, critical evaluation of environmental policies, case studies on specific environmental rulings
Visual Insights
Supreme Court's Evolving Role in Environmental Governance
Timeline illustrating the Supreme Court's increasing involvement in environmental regulation, highlighting key rulings and shifts in justification.
The Supreme Court's intervention in environmental matters has increased due to perceived inaction by regulatory bodies. This timeline shows key instances where the Court has taken a proactive role.
- 1986Environment Protection Act enacted following Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
- 1996Supreme Court introduces the 'polluter pays' principle in *Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India*.
- 2002Supreme Court directs closure of polluting industries near Taj Mahal.
- 2017Supreme Court bans the sale of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR to combat pollution during Diwali.
- 2018Supreme Court addresses the issue of diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR, pushing for cleaner fuel standards.
- 2022Supreme Court rulings on Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around protected areas.
- 2024Continued SC monitoring of ESZ implementation and pollution control measures.
- 2026Supreme Court emphasizes the need for regulatory bodies to proactively address environmental concerns, reducing the need for judicial intervention.
More Information
Background
The Supreme Court's engagement with environmental issues has evolved significantly since the 1980s. Early cases like the Ratlam Municipality case (1980) established the principle of public nuisance and the responsibility of local authorities to provide basic amenities. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) highlighted the need for stricter environmental regulations and corporate accountability.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism, strengthened in the 1980s, provided a platform for citizens to raise environmental concerns before the courts. Landmark judgments such as the MC Mehta cases on pollution of the Ganga River and vehicular emissions in Delhi further solidified the Court's role in environmental protection. These cases established the 'polluter pays' principle and the 'precautionary principle' as cornerstones of Indian environmental jurisprudence.
The enactment of environmental laws like the Environment Protection Act (1986) and the National Green Tribunal Act (2010) also shaped the legal landscape.
Latest Developments
In recent years, the Supreme Court's environmental jurisprudence has focused on balancing development with environmental protection. The Court has been actively involved in monitoring the implementation of environmental regulations and issuing directives to address specific environmental challenges. The issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR continues to be a major area of concern, with the Court issuing orders on vehicular emissions, industrial pollution, and stubble burning.
The Court has also addressed issues related to deforestation, mining, and coastal zone management. The establishment of expert committees and the use of scientific data have become increasingly important in the Court's decision-making process. The future outlook suggests a continued role for the Supreme Court in environmental governance, particularly in areas where regulatory agencies are perceived to be ineffective or lacking in enforcement capacity.
The focus is likely to remain on ensuring the effective implementation of environmental laws and promoting sustainable development.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the 'Polluter Pays Principle' in India: 1. It was first explicitly recognized and applied by the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak) case. 2. The principle implies that the cost of environmental damage should be borne by the party responsible for causing the pollution. 3. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is empowered to impose penalties based on this principle. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
All three statements are correct. The 'Polluter Pays Principle' was indeed recognized in the MC Mehta case, it mandates the polluter to bear the cost of damage, and the NGT is empowered to impose penalties based on it.
2. Which of the following committees/commissions is NOT directly related to environmental protection or conservation in India?
- A.Gadgil Committee
- B.Kasturirangan Committee
- C.NITI Aayog
- D.T.S.R. Subramanian Committee
Show Answer
Answer: C
While NITI Aayog addresses sustainable development, it is not solely focused on environmental protection like the other committees. The Gadgil and Kasturirangan Committees dealt with the Western Ghats ecology, and the T.S.R. Subramanian Committee reviewed environmental laws.