[Answered] Critically analyze the recent shift in the Supreme Court’s approach from expert-driven environmental jurisprudence towards judicial intuition.

Introduction

Once celebrated as a global leader in environmental adjudication, the Supreme Court today faces scrutiny for diluting science-based decision-making, despite India ranking 176/180 in the 2022 Environmental Performance Index.

Legacy of expert-driven environmental jurisprudence

1. Historically, the Supreme Court anchored environmental governance in scientific expertise and constitutional principles.
2. MC Mehta vs Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak): adoption of absolute liability based on industrial risk assessment.
3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996): judicial incorporation of precautionary principle and polluter pays principle.
4. Reliance on expert bodies, Shah Commission (mining), CEC, NEERI, and MoEFCC committees reinforced evidence-based adjudication.

Emerging shift towards judicial intuition

1. Recent stray dog and Aravalli hill cases reflect a departure from expert-led reasoning.
2. Interim orders passed without comprehensive ecological impact studies, carrying-capacity assessments, or public health data.
3. Absence of stakeholder consultation undermines procedural environmental justice.

Risks of determinative interim orders

1. Interim relief increasingly acquires finality, risking irreversible ecological and social outcomes.
2. In wildlife and urban ecology cases, temporary directions reshape governance without statutory backing.
3. The Supreme Court itself warned against such outcomes in State of Rajasthan vs Swaika Properties.

Undermining institutional credibility

1. Judicial substitution of expertise weakens trust in constitutional adjudication.
2. Bypassing statutory regulators like NGT, CPCB, and municipal authorities dilutes institutional coherence.
3. 2nd ARC cautioned courts against assuming executive or scientific roles.

Contradiction with fiscal jurisprudence discipline

1. The Adani Power SEZ judgment reaffirms strict adherence to legality and institutional limits.
2. SC insisted taxation must rest on clear legislative authority (Article 265).
3. Environmental cases display inconsistency by allowing discretion to override empirical grounding.

Threat to sustainable development principle

1. Judicial intuition risks distorting the balance between ecology, economy, and equity.
2. Aravallis: CGWB reports show severe groundwater depletion in NCR—decisions without site-specific science jeopardise resilience.
3. Brundtland Report (1987): sustainability requires inter-generational equity, not episodic moral adjudication.

Governance and investment uncertainty

1. Unpredictable judicial directions deter green investments and conservation partnerships.
2. Renewable energy, urban planning, and wildlife management require regulatory certainty and predictable rule-based governance.

Conclusion

As Justice J.S. Verma noted, courts must temper passion with principle; echoing CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, sustainable development demands judicial humility before science, not intuition-driven governance.