• Recent articles have highlighted concerns over the Supreme Court’s evolving role in environmental governance, pointing to frequent policy reversals and uncertainty arising from judicially driven green regulations, especially visible in 2025 environmental rulings.
• The Supreme Court’s proactive role in environmental protection, where it goes beyond adjudicating legality and issues continuous, policy-shaping directions—often through continuing mandamus—to compensate for regulatory failure.

Major Supreme Court judgments on environment in 2025:

1. Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025)

• Initially held ex post facto environmental clearances illegal as violative of the precautionary principle.
• Later reversed in review, allowing such clearances citing disruption to ongoing projects, raising concerns of doctrinal inconsistency.

2. Aravalli Hills Mining Matter (2025)

• Court adopted a restrictive definition of Aravallis (excluding areas below 100 metres), opening large tracts to mining.
• Order later stayed by a coordinate bench, and an expert committee constituted.

3. Kancha Gachibowli Forest Case, Hyderabad (2025)

• Suo motu cognisance of mass tree felling for IT infrastructure.
• Court stayed further deforestation citing biodiversity loss and public trust doctrine.

4. K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (Great Indian Bustard case)

• Continued strong conservation stance: undergrounding power lines, habitat restoration, predator-proof fencing.
• Reaffirmed link between environmental protection and inter-generational equity.

5. Delhi-NCR Air Pollution cases (2025)

• Court repeatedly directed Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on long-term planning, data transparency, and enforcement.
• Highlighted regulatory delay and lack of coordinated airshed-level governance.

6. Stray Dog Management Case (2025)

• Initial order for relocation of stray dogs later modified to sterilisation-and-release policy.
• Reflected judicial struggle to balance animal welfare with public safety.

Successes of the Supreme Court in Environmental Conservation

• Strengthened environmental jurisprudence: The Court has constitutionalised environmental protection by embedding global environmental principles into Article 21, moving beyond statutory interpretation to rights-based climate and ecological justice.
• Checked executive inaction: The Court has acted as a constitutional watchdog, compelling lethargic regulators to fulfil statutory duties when governance paralysis threatens public health.
• Prevented irreversible ecological damage: Applying the precautionary principle, the Court has halted environmentally risky activities until scientific certainty and safeguards are ensured.
• Expanded the public trust doctrine: The Court has reinforced that natural resources are held by the State in trusteeship, not ownership, for present and future generations. E.g. Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee v. District Collector (2025) imposed restoration liability on polluting tanneries under Polluter Pays.
• Mainstreamed environmental rights under Article 21: Environmental protection has been linked to dignity, health, and equality, making it a non-derogable constitutional obligation. E.g. Union of India v. Rajiv Suri (2024–25) mandated rapid constitution of SEIAAs to prevent bypassing environmental scrutiny.

Issues and Challenges Associated

• Judicial overreach into regulation: The Court sometimes prescribes technical or operational solutions, blurring the separation between adjudication and administration. E.g. In Delhi air pollution cases, directions on smog towers and traffic management intruded into CAQM’s technical domain.
• Policy uncertainty due to reversals: Frequent dilution or reversal of landmark rulings weakens regulatory predictability and long-term environmental planning. E.g. Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025) reversed the ban on post-facto clearances within months, unsettling environmental jurisprudence.
• Expertise paradox: Judicial reliance on expert committees, followed by rejection or reconstitution, undermines scientific consistency. E.g. The fluctuating judicial definition of “Aravalli Hills” led to repeated committee reviews before a final standard emerged.
• Shrinking space for public challenge: Direct Supreme Court intervention can sideline statutory forums, narrowing participatory environmental justice. E.g. Mining proponents bypassed NGT proceedings in 2025 by approaching the Supreme Court directly, muting local objections.
• Continuing mandamus fatigue: Long-running cases risk judicial micromanagement, replacing durable policy reform with interim governance. E.g. The 1-km ESZ mandate (2022) was modified after protests, reflecting instability inherent in prolonged mandamus.

Way Ahead

• Re-anchor to legality: Judicial review should prioritise due process, statutory compliance, and reasoning, not policy design.
• Discipline, don’t replace: The Court should enforce accountability rather than substitute governance.
• E.g. Holding officials liable for failure to utilise CAMPA funds would strengthen execution without micromanagement.
• Clear thresholds for intervention: A principled standard can prevent arbitrary dilution of environmental safeguards.
• E.g. A Doctrine of Non-Regression would have avoided reversal on post-facto environmental clearances.
• Strengthen institutions: Robust regulators reduce dependence on judicial governance.
• E.g. Filling vacancies in SPCBs, CAQM, and NGT would decentralise environmental justice and restore institutional balance.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court remains a crucial guardian of India’s environmental rights where governance fails. However, frequent doctrinal shifts and regulatory substitution risk eroding certainty and institutional balance. A principle-based, regulator-disciplining—not regulator-replacing—approach is essential for sustainable and democratic green governance.