Context:
The Supreme Court closed the historic MC Mehta v. Union of India (1985) case after nearly four decades, marking a major milestone in India’s environmental governance and judicial activism.
Key Highlights:
- Case Background
- Filed to address industrial pollution in Delhi
- Triggered by hazards from Shriram Food & Fertiliser plant
- Judicial Innovations
- Introduced “Absolute Liability” principle
- Used Continuing Mandamus for long-term monitoring
- Delivered 1000+ orders over decades
- Major Outcomes
- Transition of Delhi public transport to CNG
- Restrictions on polluting industries and vehicles
- Development of clean air action plans
- Role of PIL
- Strengthened Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
- Restored public trust in judiciary post-Emergency
- Current Scenario
- Despite interventions, Delhi’s air pollution persists
- Implementation gaps attributed to executive failure
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Absolute Liability: No exceptions for hazardous industries
- Continuing Mandamus: Court retains jurisdiction for compliance monitoring
- PIL: Allows citizens to approach courts for public causes
Relevant Mains Points:
- Judicial Activism:
- Judiciary played proactive role in environmental protection
- Example of expansion of Article 21 (Right to Life)
- Governance Issues:
- Weak implementation and enforcement mechanisms
- Over-reliance on judiciary vs executive accountability
- Environmental Policy Impact:
- Led to institutional reforms in pollution control
- Encouraged environmental awareness and activism
- Challenges:
- Persistent air quality crisis
- Need for coordination between agencies
- Way Forward:
- Establish dedicated environmental courts/tribunals at district level
- Strengthen executive accountability and enforcement capacity
- Enhance data-driven environmental governance
- Promote citizen participation and awareness
UPSC Relevance:
- GS 2: Polity (Judicial Activism, PIL)
- GS 3: Environment & Pollution Control
- Prelims: Key legal doctrines and landmark cases