Archives: News

Mentor’s Comment

This article examines the progressive dilution of environmental jurisprudence in India through recent judicial and regulatory developments. It analyses the shift from precautionary constitutionalism to procedural dilution in environmental governance, with reference to specific cases, statutory changes, and ecosystem impacts. The discussion is relevant for GS II (Polity), GS III (Environment), and GS IV (Ethics in governance).

Why in the News?

India stands at a constitutional and ecological crossroads. On 18 December 2025, changes in the EIA process allowed mining projects to receive clearance without full disclosure of location and area details. Transparency reduced. In Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court recalled its earlier ban on retrospective environmental clearances. This marked a shift from the earlier precautionary principle. Courts also permitted felling or transplantation of nearly 34,000 mangrove trees. Road expansion was approved in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem, despite landslide risks. These developments indicate growing regulatory dilution in environmental governance.

How Has the EIA Framework Been Diluted?

1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Simplification (2025 Policy Change): Allows environmental clearance without detailed disclosure of project location and area, reducing transparency and public scrutiny.
2. Retrospective Clearances: Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025) reversed the earlier ban on retrospective environmental clearances. Weakens deterrence principle.
3. Post-Facto Legalisation: Common Cause vs Union of India (2017) held that environmental offences cannot be regularised after occurrence. Later judicial leniency diluted this position.
4. Procedural Checklist Governance: Environmental compliance increasingly treated as administrative formality rather than substantive safeguard.

What Is the Controversy Over the Aravalli Definition?

1. Height-Based Classification: Judicial acceptance of a 100-metre height criterion for defining Aravalli hills narrows ecological protection.
2. Departure from 2010 Position: Earlier judicial approach resisted reductionist definitions and emphasised ecological interdependence.
3. Precautionary Principle Legacy: Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996) rejected artificial ecological limits.
4. Constitutional Implication: Narrow definition undermines Article 21 (right to healthy environment) and Article 48A (state duty to protect environment).

What Are the Ecological Consequences in Mangrove Regions?

1. Judicial Authorisation: Permits felling/transplantation of ~34,000 mangrove trees for infrastructure.
2. Ecosystem Function: Mangroves act as flood control systems, carbon sinks, and storm surge buffers.
3. Compensatory Afforestation Logic: Plantation elsewhere fails to replicate mature ecosystem functions.
4. Urban Ecological Risk: Dilution particularly visible in coastal urban ecology such as Mumbai.

What Is the Impact of Infrastructure Expansion in Fragile Zones?

1. Char Dham Highway Project: Road widening in Uttarakhand approved citing strategic defence needs.
2. 2025 Study Finding: Identified 811 landslide zones along project corridor.
3. Himalayan Fragility: Large-scale intervention disturbs river systems and increases landslide vulnerability.
4. Balancing Doctrine Questioned: Flash floods and ecological disturbances raise concerns about intergenerational equity.

How Does This Affect Constitutional Governance?

1. Article 48A: Mandates State to conserve and enhance environment.
2. Article 51A(g): Imposes fundamental duty on citizens to safeguard environment.
3. Article 14: Non-arbitrariness principle challenged by differential regulatory treatment favouring strong economic actors.
4. Public Trust Doctrine: M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996) held natural resources are held in trust for people and cannot be privatised.
5. Judicial Retreat: Courts historically expanded environmental rights; recent stance signals contraction.

Is There a Fairness Deficit in Environmental Governance?

1. Corporate Clearance Bias: Large-scale infrastructure and mining projects pass regulatory barriers more easily.
2. Hearing Curtailment: Objections during environmental hearings treated as obstructionist.
3. Regulatory Capture Risk: Disproportionate privileges undermine procedural fairness.
4. Transparency Erosion: Weakens public confidence in constitutional equality.

Way Forward

1. Reinforce Precautionary Principle: Restore strict adherence to the precautionary approach in environmental clearances and judicial review.
2. Strengthen EIA Transparency: Mandate full disclosure of project location, ecological impact, and cumulative assessments before approval.
3. Institutional Accountability: Ensure independent and time-bound functioning of environmental regulatory bodies and expert committees.
4. Protect Fragile Ecosystems: Adopt region-specific safeguards for mangroves, Himalayan zones, and ecologically sensitive areas.
5. Uphold Constitutional Mandate: Reaffirm Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) through consistent judicial standards.
6. Promote Intergenerational Equity: Balance development needs with long-term ecological security and disaster resilience.

Conclusion

India’s environmental jurisprudence is transitioning from expansive constitutional protection toward procedural minimalism. Narrow ecological definitions, relaxed EIA norms, and infrastructure prioritisation in fragile ecosystems weaken precautionary safeguards. Sustained dilution risks constitutional imbalance between development and ecological responsibility.