Supreme Court’s Increasing Role in Environmental Governance Raises Concerns Over Regulatory Uncertainty
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of India has shifted from reviewing administrative legality to issuing forward-looking regulatory directions in environmental matters. While intended to protect the environment, this "managerial role" has sometimes created uncertainty for regulated actors. Key instances include the 2022 mandate for Eco-sensitive Zones (ESZ) of at least one kilometer around protected areas, which was later modified due to practical difficulties. The Court's tendency to substitute for the regulator, rather than correcting the regulatory process, has led to a "push-pull" relationship with the executive, often resulting in policy U-turns.
Key Points
- The Court has moved into a "continuing mandamus" role, issuing serial directions in cases like the Aravalli hills mining.
- Frequent modifications of orders can smother meaningful judicial review in other forums.
- Experts suggest the Court should focus on disciplining the state back into regulation rather than acting as an approving authority.
- The lack of technical expertise in the judiciary can lead to rules that are ecologically or feasibly difficult to implement.
Exam Facts
- June 2022 ESZ judgment mandated 1km buffer zones.
- Vanashakti vs Union of India (May 2025) case regarding ex post facto clearances.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.