The fading of India’s environmental jurisprudence

Source: The post “The fading of India’s environmental jurisprudences” has been created, based on “The fading of India’s environmental jurisprudence” published in “The Hindu ” on 06th February 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- Governance

Context: India’s judiciary has historically played a significant role in protecting the environment by expanding the scope of Article 21 and applying principles such as sustainable development and the public trust doctrine. However, in recent years, several judicial decisions indicate a gradual weakening of environmental safeguards in the name of development and economic growth.

Evidence of Dilution of Environmental Protection

1. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision on the Aravalli Hills accepted a height-based definition, which excluded large ecologically sensitive areas from legal protection.
2. This decision reversed the Court’s earlier ecological approach adopted in 2010, which recognised the Aravallis as an integrated geomorphological system.
3. The recall of Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025) permitted retrospective environmental clearances, thereby weakening regulatory enforcement.
4. The Environmental Impact Assessment process has been undermined by allowing post-facto and conditional clearances.
5. Judicial approval for the destruction of mangroves in Mumbai and Raigarh has been granted on the basis of compensatory afforestation, which ignores ecological realities.
6. The Char Dham highway project was allowed despite scientific warnings about landslides and ecological fragility.
7. Courts have shown leniency towards mining and infrastructure violations by overlooking procedural lapses.

Constitutional Implications

1. The dilution of environmental protection weakens the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21.
2. Article 48A, which mandates environmental conservation by the State, is reduced to a symbolic provision.
3. Arbitrary classifications, such as height-based protection of hills, violate the principle of equality under Article 14.
4. The weakening of environmental governance undermines the citizens’ duty under Article 51A(g).
5. Judicial approvals for resource exploitation weaken the public trust doctrine.

Ecological Consequences

1. The weakening of environmental safeguards leads to increased desertification and depletion of groundwater resources.
2. It contributes to the loss of biodiversity and degradation of wetlands and forests.
3. It increases vulnerability to floods, landslides, and extreme weather events.
4. It causes irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems such as the Himalayas and coastal regions.
5. It intensifies long-term climate change risks.

Issues of Governance and Fairness

1. Large corporations are able to obtain environmental clearances with relative ease.
2. Public hearings are often reduced to mere formalities without meaningful participation.
3. Environmental compliance is treated as a checklist rather than a substantive process.
4. Local communities and indigenous groups are marginalised in decision-making.
5. Such practices reduce public trust in environmental governance and institutions.

Way Forward

1. Strengthening Judicial Commitment: Courts must strictly apply the precautionary principle and public trust doctrine. Environmental protection should be treated as a constitutional priority.
2. Reforming the EIA Process: Post-facto clearances must be completely prohibited. Environmental assessments should be transparent, scientific, and location-specific.
3. Establishing Regular Green Benches: Permanent Green Benches should function in all High Courts. This will ensure specialised and consistent environmental adjudication.
4. Greater Use of Scientific Evidence: Judicial decisions must rely on independent expert studies. Scientific impact assessments should be mandatory before approvals.
5. Enhancing Public Participation: Public hearings should be conducted meaningfully in local languages. Community concerns must be given due importance.
6. Strengthening Regulatory Institutions: Pollution Control Boards and environmental authorities should be autonomous and well-funded. This will reduce political and corporate interference.
7. Strict Enforcement and Penalties: Environmental violations must attract heavy fines and criminal liability. Regularisation of illegal activities should be discouraged.
8. Promoting Sustainable Development: Projects must respect ecological carrying capacity. Green technologies and nature-based solutions should be prioritised.

Conclusion: There is a need to restore the judiciary’s proactive role in environmental protection by strengthening the EIA process, prohibiting post-facto clearances, and ensuring strict enforcement of environmental laws. Regular functioning of Green Benches, greater transparency, and meaningful public participation are essential. Development must be pursued in harmony with ecological sustainability to uphold constitutional values and intergenerational equity.

Question: Discuss how recent judicial trends indicate a dilution of environmental jurisprudence in India. Examine its constitutional and ecological implications.