Context:
Recent environmental rulings of the Supreme Court of India have raised concerns regarding judicial overreach and regulatory uncertainty, particularly in cases involving Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ), air pollution, mining, and environmental clearances.
Key Highlights:
Judicial Interventions
- June 2022: Mandated minimum 1 km ESZ around protected areas.
• April 2023: Modified ESZ rule where government notifications already existed.
• 2015: Ban on registration of 2,000 cc diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR; later relaxed with environmental compensation charge.
• Imposed bans on firecrackers in NCR, later allowing “green crackers.”
Triggers for Judicial Action
- Fragmented enforcement by regulators.
• Delayed ESZ notifications.
• Weak environmental monitoring.
• Ad hoc exemptions and poor compliance.
Doctrinal Shifts
- From reviewing legality → to assessing consequences of administrative action.
• Use of Continuing Mandamus for ongoing monitoring.
• Intervention in cases like Vanashakti vs Union of India (ex post facto clearances).
• Disputes over expert interpretation (e.g., Aravalli mining case).
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) – Buffer areas around protected areas under Environment Protection Act, 1986.
• Continuing Mandamus – Ongoing judicial supervision over executive action.
• Ex Post Facto Clearance – Retrospective environmental approval.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Specialized environmental adjudicatory body.
Relevant Mains Points:
- Reflects expanding scope of Judicial Activism in Environmental Governance.
• Raises concerns regarding:
– Separation of powers
– Institutional expertise
– Regulatory certainty - Courts fill vacuum when executive fails in enforcement.
• However, sweeping directives may create:
– Policy unpredictability
– Compliance uncertainty
– Investor hesitation - Need balance between Environmental Protection (Article 21) and Economic Development.
Way Forward
- Strengthen regulatory institutions and scientific capacity.
• Ensure time-bound environmental clearances.
• Courts should define clear thresholds for intervention.
• Enhance coordination between Judiciary, Executive, and Expert Bodies.
UPSC Relevance:
- GS 2 – Separation of Powers, Judicial Activism
• GS 3 – Environment & Ecology, Environmental Governance
• Prelims – ESZ, Environmental Protection Act, Key Doctrines