A Lancet Planetary Health study finds that older adults in India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh could face dangerous heat for up to 3 months at 3°C warming. Using age-specific heat tolerance thresholds shows previous estimates may have underestimated risk by at least two-fold.
Key Concepts
Heat Stress
Occurs when the body cannot shed enough heat to maintain normal core temperature.
Depends on temperature + humidity + duration, not temperature alone.
High humidity reduces sweat evaporation and increases risk.
Wet-Bulb Temperature
Measures the lowest temperature achievable through evaporative cooling.
Combines heat and humidity.
Around 35°C wet-bulb temperature is the theoretical survivability limit for a healthy person at rest, while vulnerable groups face risk at lower levels.
Heat Action Plan
City/State-level system covering:
Early warnings and colour-coded alerts
Changes in work/school timings
Cooling shelters and water
Hospital preparedness
Study Findings
Examined 15-39, 40-59 and 60+ age groups.
Modelled warming from 1°C to 4°C.
At 3°C warming, over 80% of India’s older population could experience at least 180 hours of intolerable heat annually.
Delhi and the Indo-Gangetic Plain could see nearly 1,000 hours at 1.5°C warming and over 2,000 hours at 3°C.
Heat exposure is concentrated mainly between May and September and increasingly extends into nights.
The Supreme Court has directed a fresh nationwide survey of elephant corridors, noting that several corridors remain impeded, blocked or obstructed despite existing guidelines of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
The Court held that crop damage cannot justify placing obstacles in elephant movement paths, highlighting the conflict between wildlife conservation and local livelihood concerns.
What is an Elephant Corridor?
Meaning: A natural or narrow land passage connecting two elephant habitats, enabling movement between them.
Need: Elephants move over large areas in search of food, water and mineral licks.
Ecological role: Corridors maintain habitat connectivity and gene flow between elephant populations.
Legal status: Corridors are identified through ecological and movement studies but are not automatically Protected Areas.
Land ownership: Many corridors pass through private, revenue, plantation or community land.
India:150 elephant corridors have been identified across 15 elephant range States.
What did the Supreme Court Direct?
Fresh nationwide survey of elephant corridors.
A comprehensive report on existing corridors and measures taken to prevent their obstruction.
Identification of corridors that have been blocked, choked or obstructed.
States cannot justify blocking elephant paths merely because of crop destruction.
The Court emphasised that elephants are a wide-ranging species and require unobstructed movement.
The matter will be considered again after six weeks.
Why are Elephant Corridors Important?
Habitat connectivity: Prevents isolation of elephant populations.
Gene flow: Allows breeding between different populations.
Conflict reduction: Functional corridors can prevent elephants from being forced into settlements.
Climate resilience: Connected habitats allow species to shift their range as environmental conditions change.
Resorts and other infrastructure: Restrict access to traditional movement paths.
Railways and highways: Increase collision and fragmentation risks.
Plantations and agriculture: Conversion of corridor land narrows movement routes.
Electric fencing: Illegal or poorly designed fencing can cause electrocution.
Mining and quarrying: Remove vegetation and fragment habitats.
Canals and irrigation structures: Create physical barriers, particularly for calves.
Settlements and encroachment: Increase human presence along traditional routes.
Elephant Conservation in India
The species and its status: The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List and is India’s National Heritage Animal, declared in 2010.
India’s share of the global population: India holds the largest wild Asian elephant population, about 29,964 individuals, roughly 60 per cent of the global population as per the 2017 census.
Population growth under the programme: Wild elephant numbers rose from about 25,000 in 1992 to about 30,000 in 2021 under Project Elephant.
State distribution:Karnataka holds the highest population, followed by Assam and Kerala.
Elephant Reserves: India has 33 elephant reserves covering about 80,777 sq km.
Corridors:150 corridors have been identified across 15 elephant range States.
Regional spread of corridors: The East central region holds 52 corridors, or 35 per cent of the total, the North East 48 corridors, or 32 per cent, Southern India 32 corridors, or 21 per cent, and Northern India 18 corridors, or 12 per cent.
State with the most corridors:West Bengal, with 26 corridors, about 17 per cent of the national total.
Why the elephant is a keystone species: It disperses seeds over long distances and opens forest canopy and waterholes that other species depend on.
Article 48A: Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A(g): Places a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17B: Places protection of wild animals and birds on the Concurrent List after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17A: Places forests on the Concurrent List, which is why State forest departments implement central wildlife law.
Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read to include a right to a clean and healthy environment, the basis for much environmental litigation.
Article 32 and Article 142: Give the Supreme Court the power to entertain writ petitions and to pass orders necessary for complete justice, the source of continuing mandamus in wildlife matters.
Article 253: Empowers Parliament to legislate to implement international conventions, the basis for wildlife law giving effect to treaty obligations.
Laws and Rules Governing Elephants and Their Habitat
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The primary law for protection of wild animals and plants and for the constitution of protected areas.
Key protection: The Indian elephant is listed in Schedule I, which carries the highest degree of protection and the strictest penalties.
2022 Amendment: Rationalised the schedules, gave effect to CITES obligations in domestic law, and regulated the transfer of captive elephants for religious and other purposes.
Project Elephant, 1992: A centrally sponsored scheme for protection of elephants, their habitat and corridors, and for management of human elephant conflict.
Coverage: It extends to 23 States and provides the framework under which elephant reserves are declared.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, renamed the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam: Requires prior central approval for diverting forest land, which governs infrastructure passing through corridors on forest land.
Indian Forest Act, 1927: Provides the categories of reserved and protected forest through which many corridors run.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises community rights in forest areas, including in landscapes that carry elephant movement.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides for eco sensitive zone notifications and environmental clearance conditions applicable to projects near protected areas.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Provides for conservation of biological diversity and equitable sharing of benefits, with biodiversity management committees at the local level.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: Lists the Asian elephant in Appendix I, barring commercial international trade in the species and its parts.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals: Lists the Asian elephant in Appendix I, obliging range States to conserve and restore its habitats.
Back2Basics: Asian Elephant
Scientific and common name:Elephas maximus, the Asian or Asiatic elephant, of which the Indian elephant is the mainland subspecies.
IUCN Red List status:Endangered.
Convention on Migratory Species: Listed in Appendix I.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Listed in Schedule I, the highest protection category.
Global significance: India holds the largest wild Asian elephant population in the world, about 29,964 individuals, close to 60 per cent of the global total as per the 2017 census.
Range within India: Highest numbers in Karnataka, followed by Assam and Kerala, across 15 elephant range States.
Habitat: Tropical moist and dry deciduous forest, grassland, scrub and adjoining agricultural landscapes, with populations in fragmented forests, tea estates and farmland.
Social structure: Herds are matrilineal, led by an older female, and family units combine into clans and sub populations.
Communication: Elephants use over 60 distinct calls together with gestures and physical contact, including low frequency rumbles that carry over long distances.
Behavioural notes: Elephants comfort distressed companions, mourn their dead, cooperate in raising calves and adopt orphaned young, and individual animals show distinct personalities.
Recorded mortuary behaviour: Research in fragmented forests, tea estates and farmland near the Gorumara Wildlife Division and Buxa Tiger Reserve in West Bengal documented herds carrying calf carcasses and burying them in a legs upright position, then avoiding paths near the burial site.
Genetic structure: A recent study identified five genetically distinct populations of Asian elephants in India.
Conservation framework: Project Elephant, 1992, 33 elephant reserves over about 80,777 sq km, and 150 identified corridors.
Named corridors: Kaniyanpura to Moyar in Karnataka, Chilla to Motichur in Uttarakhand, Thirunelli to Kudarakote in Kerala, the Segur corridor in Tamil Nadu, Kuldiha to Hadgarh in Odisha, Edayarahalli to Doddasampige in Karnataka, and Mudahalli to Talavadi across Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
Major threats: Habitat loss and fragmentation, corridor blockage, railway collisions, electrocution, poaching for ivory, and retaliatory killing arising from crop and property damage.
Government Initiatives
Project Elephant, 1992: The umbrella centrally sponsored scheme for elephant protection, habitat and corridor management, and conflict mitigation across 23 States.
Elephant Reserves: 33 reserves notified over about 80,777 sq km, providing a landscape unit for management outside the protected area system.
Gaj Yatra: A national awareness campaign for securing elephant corridors, launched on World Elephant Day.
Haathi Mere Saathi: A public outreach campaign of the Ministry to build tolerance and awareness in elephant range landscapes.
Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants: A site based monitoring programme run under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, in which India participates.
Surakshya portal: A national portal for real time reporting and collection of human elephant conflict data from the field.
Synchronised elephant population estimation: A periodic all India estimation exercise conducted jointly by range States using common protocols.
National Wildlife Action Plan 2017 to 2031: The national policy framework for wildlife conservation, including landscape level and corridor conservation.
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority: Funds habitat improvement and conflict mitigation works, including barriers and water sources, in elephant landscapes.
Key Facts about Elephants in India
World Elephant Day: Observed on 12 August every year.
National Heritage Animal: The Indian elephant was declared India’s National Heritage Animal in 2010.
Project Elephant launch:February 1992, by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Largest land mammal in Asia: The Asian elephant is the largest terrestrial mammal on the continent.
Distinguishing feature: Only some male Asian elephants carry tusks, unlike the African elephant where both sexes commonly do.
Gestation: About 22 months, the longest of any land mammal, which makes population recovery slow.
Elephant reserves and corridors: 33 reserves and 150 identified corridors across 15 range States.
Gaj Yatra launch: Launched on 12 August 2017 as a nationwide corridor awareness campaign.
Global population share: India holds about 60 per cent of the world’s wild Asian elephants.
“[2022] With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements : 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ? (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 (d) 3 only
A performance audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of the Green India Mission (GIM) has found that across a decade the Mission improved forest quality over only 0.11 million hectares against a target of 1.4 million hectares, and achieved barely 4 per cent of its forest cover expansion goal. The Mission was designed as ecological restoration, and it has been displaced in practice by a sapling planting drive whose success is measured in trees planted rather than in forest restored. The India State of Forest Report 2023 records a green cover gain of 1,445 sq km, of which only 156 sq km is true forest.
What is the Green India Mission?
What it is: A national mission of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change aimed at protecting, restoring and enhancing India’s forest cover and at responding to climate change through adaptation and mitigation.
Where it sits: It is one of the eight pillars of the National Action Plan on Climate Change, unveiled in 2008.
Its climate function: It is the instrument through which India promised the Paris Agreement an additional carbon sink of 2.5 billion to 3 billion tonnes by 2030.
Its animating idea: The objective is ecological, covering biodiversity, water, carbon sequestration and the revival of habitat, not the raising of tree numbers.
Its twin physical targets: The Mission set out to increase forest and tree cover on one block of land and to improve the quality of existing forest cover on another.
Its funding design: It was built to draw money and labour from other programmes rather than from its own budget line alone.
What is the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority?
What it is: The statutory authority, known as CAMPA, that manages funds collected from industry and other user agencies in return for the diversion of forest land to non forest use.
What it funds: The money is channelled into afforestation, catchment treatment and habitat improvement, which is why the Green India Mission was designed to converge with it.
What is tree cover outside recorded forests?
What it is: Tree patches smaller than one hectare and trees standing outside the legally recorded forest area, counted separately from forest cover in the national forest assessment.
Why the distinction matters: A plantation, an orchard or an avenue of trees adds to this category without adding to forest, so a rise in green cover can occur while forest itself stagnates.
What is Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam?
What it is: A tree plantation campaign launched in 2024, translated as A Tree in the Name of Mother, under which the government reports planting 140 crore saplings so far.
Its effect on the Mission: For practical purposes it has replaced the Green India Mission as the visible face of India’s forest effort.
What did the Comptroller and Auditor General audit find?
Forest quality improvement: Against a target of improving forest quality over 1.4 million hectares, the Mission managed 0.11 million hectares, less than a tenth of the target.
Forest cover expansion: On expanding forest cover the Mission achieved barely four per cent of its goal.
Recorded shortfall on quality: The audit records a shortfall of about 91.87 per cent against the forest quality improvement target over ten years.
Recorded shortfall on cover: The audit records a shortfall of about 97.57 per cent against the forest cover target over the same period.
Coverage of the audit: The performance audit examined implementation across 16 States and Union Territories.
Money actually received: Only about Rs 1,149.14 crore of budgetary support reached the Mission over the audited decade.
Convergence not achieved: The Mission’s intended convergence with its partner schemes did not materialise.
The overall verdict: A scheme conceived to heal India’s forests achieved almost nothing it set out to do across a decade.
Why did the Mission’s convergence with other funding streams fail?
The CAMPA channel: CAMPA holds money collected from industry for diverting forest land into afforestation, and that money did not flow into Mission activity as designed.
The wage labour channel: The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, rebranded VB G RAM G, funds rural wage labour that can be used for plantation and land restoration works.
What convergence was meant to do: The Mission’s own budget line was small by design, so its physical targets depended on borrowing funds and labour from these two much larger streams.
What happened instead: The convergence never materialised, which left the Mission with a decadal target set for one scale of resources and an actual allocation of a different scale.
The consequence for accountability: A mission that does not control its own money cannot be held to its own targets, and no single agency owns the shortfall.
The displacement effect: With convergence absent, the plantation drive absorbed the political attention and the reporting space that restoration was meant to occupy.
What does the India State of Forest Report 2023 show about the quality of the gain?
The headline gain: The report records a gain of 1,445 sq km in green cover.
The forest share of that gain: Only 156 sq km of that gain is true forest.
The remainder: The other 1,289 sq km is tree cover outside recorded forests.
Inside the recorded forests: Dense canopy within recorded forest area is thinning into scrub.
What the two numbers together establish: India is planting more and foresting less, so an aggregate green cover figure conceals a decline in forest quality.
Why this matters for the carbon pledge: A carbon sink commitment measured in billions of tonnes rests on dense forest, not on scattered tree cover that stores far less carbon per hectare.
Why does the Aravalli Green Wall illustrate the limits of planting?
The state of the range: The Aravallis are among the country’s most degraded ranges, with hillocks quarried away over decades.
The invasion: Native growth has been overrun by the invasive vilayati kikar (Prosopis juliflora), which suppresses regeneration of native species.
The proposed remedy: The range is now to be rescued by a Green Wall of fresh planting.
What planting cannot do, first: Fresh saplings cannot undo the damage left by years of mining and the removal of the hill itself.
What planting cannot do, second: Planting does not halt encroachment on the range, which is a land use and enforcement problem.
What planting cannot do, third: An ecosystem that took millennia to assemble cannot be summoned back by a plantation drive.
The governing distinction: Restoration rebuilds the ecological function of a landscape, and landscaping only adds vegetation to it.
Where does counting trees diverge from restoring forests?
Two different outputs: A sapling planted is a countable annual output. A restored forest is a slow change in canopy density, species composition and soil.
Two different timelines: Planting reports results within a financial year, and restoration shows results across decades, which biases the system toward planting.
Two different failure modes: Plantation failure shows up as sapling mortality that is rarely audited. Restoration failure shows up in the forest report, as it has in 2023.
The metric drives the money: With 140 crore saplings as the reported achievement and 0.11 million hectares as the restored area, the reporting system rewards the activity that is easiest to count.
Species and structure are lost in the count: A count of trees is indifferent to whether the trees are native, whether they form a canopy, and whether they support the species the forest once held.
The ecological cost of the substitution: Biodiversity, groundwater recharge and habitat revival, the Mission’s stated objectives, do not follow automatically from a higher tree count.
What can an audit of this kind not capture?
The instrument is accountancy: The audit counts hectares and rupees, and it cannot count the worth of a living forest.
Ecological value is not a line item: Pollination, water regulation, soil stabilisation and habitat quality have no entry in a financial performance table.
Implementation reality: The assessment cannot always capture the practical difficulties of running a mission across State forest departments with varying capacity.
Time lag in forest outcomes: Restoration works undertaken late in the audit period cannot show measurable results within it.
Why the verdict still stands: Even on its own limited terms, an achievement of four per cent against a cover target and a tenth of a quality target is a failure of implementation, not a measurement artefact.
What the audit does establish: The mission designed to restore India’s forests was allowed to wither while the state busied itself counting trees.
Challenges to the Green India Mission
Sapling survival is not tracked: Plantation drives report numbers planted and rarely report survival after three years. e.g. successive State plantation drives reporting crore scale planting with no published third year survival audit.
Monoculture and exotic species: Plantations favour fast growing and commercially useful species over native mixed forest, which limits habitat value. e.g. eucalyptus and acacia blocks raised on degraded common land in Karnataka and Gujarat.
Land availability for restoration: The Mission needs degraded forest land free of competing claims, and much of it carries grazing, cultivation and settlement use. e.g. contested village common land in the Aravalli belt of Haryana and Rajasthan.
Forest rights not settled first: Restoration works on land where individual and community claims under forest rights law remain undecided create conflict with forest dwellers. e.g. pending community forest resource claims across central Indian districts.
Invasive species suppress regeneration: Restoration on invaded land fails unless the invasive is removed first, which is costlier than planting. e.g. Prosopis juliflora in the Aravallis and Lantana camara across central Indian forests.
Weak convergence architecture: The Mission depends on funds controlled by other schemes with their own targets and reporting cycles. e.g. CAMPA balances lying unspent with State authorities while Mission works waited for money.
Staffing and capacity in forest departments: Frontline forest staff vacancies limit the supervision that assisted natural regeneration requires. e.g. large vacancy levels in forest guard and forester posts reported by several State forest departments.
Diversion continues alongside restoration: Forest land continues to be diverted for infrastructure while restoration targets are missed, so the net position worsens. e.g. compensatory afforestation for the Ken Betwa link inside the Panna landscape.
Green cover accounting conflates categories: Counting orchards, plantations and avenue trees within green cover masks the loss of dense natural forest. e.g. the 1,289 sq km of tree cover outside recorded forests in the 2023 assessment.
Conclusion
India has substituted a countable output, saplings planted, for the objective it actually set itself, which is restored forest, and the audit records the cost of that substitution across a decade. The Green India Mission failed not because restoration is unachievable but because it was starved of money, denied the convergence it was designed around, and displaced by a drive that reports faster numbers. Until forest quality, canopy density and sapling survival replace planting counts as the reported metric, the Paris carbon sink commitment will rest on an inflated green cover figure. The instrument exists and the finance does not follow it.
Forest Cover and Restoration in India
What forest cover means: All land more than one hectare in area with a tree canopy density of more than 10 per cent, irrespective of ownership or legal status.
The assessment: The Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, publishes the India State of Forest Report every two years using satellite data and field inventory.
The national scale: Total forest and tree cover is about 8,27,357 sq km, which is about 25.17 per cent of the geographical area, per the 2023 assessment.
The split: Forest cover is about 7,15,343 sq km, or 21.76 per cent, and tree cover about 1,12,014 sq km, or 3.41 per cent.
The policy target: The National Forest Policy, 1988 sets a goal of 33 per cent of the geographical area under forest and tree cover.
The canopy classes: Forest cover is classed as very dense forest, moderately dense forest and open forest, by canopy density bands.
The international commitment: India has committed to restoring 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030, a pledge raised from an earlier 21 million hectare commitment under the Bonn Challenge.
The climate commitment: India’s nationally determined contribution promises an additional carbon sink of 2.5 billion to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
Why restoration differs from afforestation: Restoration rebuilds a degraded ecosystem’s native composition and function, and afforestation only establishes trees on land, often with a single species.
Constitutional Framework Governing Forests and the Environment
Article 48A: Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A(g): Places a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.
Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read by the courts to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17A: Places forests on the Concurrent List after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17B: Places protection of wild animals and birds on the Concurrent List.
Article 253: Empowers Parliament to legislate to implement international agreements, the basis for environmental laws giving effect to treaty commitments.
Article 244 and the Fifth Schedule: Provide for administration of Scheduled Areas, which overlap substantially with India’s forest landscapes.
Article 243ZD and Part IX: Place village level planning with Panchayats, the base for Gram Sabha consultation in forest areas.
Laws and Rules Governing Forests and Compensatory Afforestation
Indian Forest Act, 1927: Consolidates the law on forests, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on it, and provides for reserved, protected and village forests.
Key feature: It creates the categories of legally recorded forest against which forest cover is measured.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Requires prior approval of the Union government for the diversion of forest land to non forest use.
2023 amendment: Renamed the Act the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and exempted specified categories of land and projects from prior approval.
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016: Establishes the National and State Compensatory Afforestation Funds and the authorities that manage them.
Rules, 2018: Set out the procedure for utilisation of the accumulated fund for afforestation, catchment treatment and wildlife management.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises individual and community forest rights and requires Gram Sabha consent for diversion.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Governs protected areas, and restricts activities inside national parks, sanctuaries, conservation reserves and tiger reserves.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: The umbrella law under which environmental clearance, eco sensitive zone notifications and emission standards are issued.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Creates a specialised tribunal for environmental disputes, including challenges to forest diversion and afforestation failures.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Provides for conservation of biological diversity and the constitution of biodiversity management committees at the local level.
“[2016] Which of the following best describes/ describe the aim of ‘Green India Mission’ of the Government of India? 1. Incorporating environmental benefits and costs into the Union and State Budgets thereby implementing the ‘green accounting’ 2. Launching the second green revolution to enhance agricultural output so as to ensure food security to one and all in the future 3. Restoring and enhancing forest cover and responding to climate change by a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Construction on the Daudhan dam across the Ken river in Madhya Pradesh’s Bundelkhand region is advancing while 22 villages in Panna and Chhatarpur districts face displacement. The project is designed to move water to 13 water stressed districts, and the households paying for that transfer are largely Gond Adivasi families whose forest based livelihoods and absence of recorded land title place them outside the compensation package built for the transfer. A protest movement led by Adivasi women has been running since 2022 and drew national attention in April and July 2026.
What is the Ken Betwa river linking project?
What it does: It transfers water described as surplus from the Ken river to the Betwa river through a canal, for irrigation and drinking water in Bundelkhand.
Approval: The Union Cabinet approved the interlink in 2021.
The canal: A 231 km long canal carries the transferred water between the two rivers.
The dam: The Daudhan dam, built across the Ken inside the Panna landscape, is the main structure of the project.
The beneficiary area: Water stressed districts of Bundelkhand, a region spanning 13 districts across Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
Its status in policy: It is the first link to be taken up for implementation under the national river interlinking programme.
What is a patta?
What it is: A document of recorded title or of a recognised right over land, issued by the revenue or forest administration.
Why it decides everything here: Compensation for acquired land is paid per acre of titled land, so a family cultivating or using land without a patta has no claim to that component.
What is the Forest Advisory Committee?
What it is: The statutory committee under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 that advises the Union government on proposals to divert forest land for non forest use.
Its role here: Its 2017 record carries the detailed project report’s estimate of the tree felling the project requires.
What is the Chita Aandolan?
What it is: A symbolic pyre protest in which affected villagers lie on funeral pyres to signal that displacement amounts to the end of their life in the place.
Who leads it: It has been led by Adivasi women of the affected villages and has run since 2022.
What is minor forest produce?
What it is: Non timber produce of plant origin gathered from forests, including mahua flowers, tendu leaves, fruits, resins and seeds.
Why it is the livelihood question: Households in the affected villages meet their cash and food needs by collecting charwa, mahua, tendu leaves and guli golanda, none of which is valued in a land based compensation formula.
What are the numbers behind the displacement?
Villages submerged:10 villages, including Daudhan, will be submerged by the reservoir.
Villages displaced for compensatory forest: Because the project falls within the Panna Tiger Reserve, the people of another 12 villages will be displaced to offset the loss of forest area.
Total affected:22 villages across Panna and Chhatarpur districts in all.
Population at the dam site: Around 700 people live in Daudhan village, next to which construction is under way.
A village outside the submergence zone: Narauli, home to around 300 people and inhabited mostly by the Gond community, sits on a hill outside the submergence zone and faces the same loss of forest access.
Cash compensation: Villagers who were 18 years or older in February 2024 are eligible for Rs 12.5 lakh each.
Land compensation:Rs 5 lakh per acre of acquired land, payable only against titled land.
Tree felling: A 2017 Forest Advisory Committee record carries the detailed project report estimate that 23 lakh trees will be felled. Some experts hold this to be an underestimate.
Forest area submerged: The Daudhan dam submerges about 4,141 hectares of Panna Tiger Reserve land, within a wider rehabilitation process affecting about 1,913 families.
How has the resistance developed?
Start of the movement: The Chita Aandolan, or symbolic pyre protest, has been running since 2022.
Preventive detention: The leader of the movement was placed under preventive detention in February 2026.
Gathering at the magistrate’s office: About 200 villagers assembled at the sub divisional magistrate’s office demanding his immediate release.
Police account of the escalation: The Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, stated that villagers later locked the office and threw stones at revenue officials and at a marriage procession, after which the police used minimum limited force.
April protest: Affected Adivasi families staged a pyre protest in Chhatarpur on 10 April 2026, which brought the movement national attention.
July protest: Villagers again lay on symbolic pyres and began a hunger strike at the Barnar river, with a protest on the banks on 18 July.
Clearance of the site: After 15 days, the police cleared the protest site.
Dialogue that did not occur: The movement’s leader stated that the administration had promised a dialogue with representatives of the Centre, and that no such conversation took place.
Why was the project approved?
The surplus framing: The Ken is treated as carrying water beyond its basin’s need, and the Betwa basin as deficient, which is the premise the transfer rests on.
The regional case: Bundelkhand is among India’s driest and most impoverished regions and has a long record of drought and distress migration.
The stated purpose: Irrigation and drinking water for the water stressed districts of the region.
The two rivers: The Ken rises in the Vindhyan plateau, flows mainly through Madhya Pradesh and joins the Yamuna at Banda in Uttar Pradesh. The Betwa also rises in the Vindhyas, flows mainly through Uttar Pradesh and meets the Yamuna at Hamirpur.
Why both matter locally: Both rivers run through the same region, so the transfer moves water within Bundelkhand rather than out of it.
The contested premise: The surplus classification is an assessment of basin yield, and it is the step that decides how much displacement is treated as justified.
Why does monetary compensation fail to reach the affected?
The title requirement: Most Adivasi families in the affected villages do not hold patta land, so the per acre component does not apply to them.
The cut off date: Eligibility for the cash component is fixed by age as on February 2024, which excludes those who reached adulthood after that date.
Forest income is unvalued: Livelihoods built on mahua, charwa, tendu leaves and other forest produce are not converted into any head of compensation.
Non submergence villages: Narauli is not in the submergence zone yet loses the forest that sustains it, a loss the acquisition framework does not recognise.
Standing assets: Trees planted over a lifetime, including mango, ber, kaitha and teak, are counted as forest loss for the project and not as household assets.
Process complaints: Houses in some villages were demolished without adequate notice or compensation, according to the movement’s leader.
What is being lost beyond land and houses?
Community: Households state that relocation breaks the kinship network in which they live, so the social relations of the village do not travel with the compensation.
Language: Villagers raise the loss of their own dialect in a new settlement as a distinct concern.
Sacred geography: Village deities and sites of worship are tied to the specific location and cannot be relocated with the households.
Birthplace claim: Residents describe the land along the Ken as their janam bhoomi, or place of birth, and treat that as an independent ground of refusal.
Forest as an economy: The forest edge supplies food, cash income and fuel, so its loss is an income shock and not only a cultural one.
The collective demand: The stated position is a forest for their forest, land for their land, water for their water and a village for their village.
Where does the water security case collide with the displacement cost?
Two legitimate claims: Drinking water and irrigation for 13 water stressed districts is a genuine public purpose. So is the security of tenure of the households inside the submergence zone.
Same region, different people: The transfer moves water within Bundelkhand, so the beneficiaries and the displaced belong to the same drought affected region.
The forest multiplier: Because the reservoir sits inside a tiger reserve, forest loss must be offset, which displaces a second set of 12 villages that the dam itself would not have touched.
Compensation without capacity: A cash package can settle a title based claim. It cannot replace a forest based livelihood or a functioning village.
The dialogue gap: Even where the project moves ahead, an immediate and structured negotiation on resettlement and rehabilitation with an organised community is missing, as the organiser of the Narmada Bachao Andolan has recorded.
Deferred rather than resolved: Building the dam settles the water question and shifts the livelihood question to a resettlement site that has not been defined.
What has the administrative response been?
Claim of redressal: The District Magistrate of Chhatarpur in April stated that most of the demands raised during the April protests had been addressed.
Silence since: The current District Magistrate and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Revenue department: An email to the Principal Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Revenue Department, which oversees land acquisition, drew no reply.
Policing of protest: Villagers who went to Chhatarpur and Bijawar to press their demands state that the police responded with lathis.
Official account of force: The Superintendent of Police stated that minimum limited force was used after the office was locked and stones were thrown.
Field level messaging: Households report being told by the village revenue official that their land is going to submerge and that no further claim arises.
What are the villagers demanding?
April demands, first: A joint survey of land and houses by the administration and the affected families.
April demands, second:Rs 25 lakh in compensation per individual.
April demands, third: Four times the value of the land in compensation.
April demands, fourth: A deadline of April 2026 for settlement of these claims.
July demands, first:Three acres of land granted jointly in the names of the male and the female head of each family.
July demands, second: A village for the displaced village, so that the community is resettled together rather than scattered.
July demands, third: The same April 2026 deadline carried forward.
The organising principle: The shift from cash amounts in April to land and village in July reflects a demand for restitution in kind rather than a higher price.
Challenges to the Ken Betwa river linking project
Contested surplus assessment: The classification of a river as surplus rests on basin yield estimates that independent hydrologists dispute. e.g. objections filed before the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee on the Ken’s assessed surplus.
Loss inside a protected area: The reservoir submerges core tiger habitat, which no compensatory afforestation reproduces. e.g. about 4,141 hectares of Panna Tiger Reserve land under submergence.
Cumulative pressure on the same landscape: Further projects are cleared in the same corridor while the dam is under construction. e.g. the 1,800 MW Panari pumped storage project cleared on about 411 hectares in the Panna Ranipur corridor in August 2026.
Compensatory afforestation cannot replace old growth: Plantations take decades to deliver the produce and habitat value of a felled forest. e.g. an estimated 23 lakh trees to be felled under the detailed project report.
Forest rights not settled before acquisition: Individual and community claims under forest rights law are often unsettled when land is taken. e.g. Gond families in the affected villages without patta land.
Resettlement site quality: Displaced households are commonly resettled on land without water, forest access or common grazing. e.g. the long unresolved rehabilitation record of the Sardar Sarovar oustees.
Cost and time escalation: Long gestation interlinking works overrun both budget and schedule, which pushes rehabilitation spending to the end. e.g. an approved cost of about Rs 44,605 crore in 2021 with an eight year completion schedule.
Downstream and interstate obligations: Water sharing commitments between Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh determine actual delivery, not the design capacity. e.g. the interstate memorandum of agreement signed on 22 March 2021.
Conclusion
The Ken Betwa link moves water within Bundelkhand, and it moves the entire cost of that transfer onto Adivasi households whose form of landholding and forest based income the compensation framework does not recognise. The design question is not the amount of the package but its unit: the villages are asking for land, forest and a resettled village, and the State is offering a per head cash sum against titled acres most of them do not hold. Until forest rights are settled and a defined resettlement site is negotiated with the community as a unit, construction will continue to run ahead of rehabilitation.
Interlinking of Rivers in India
The idea: Transferring water from basins assessed as surplus to basins assessed as deficient, through a network of storage dams and link canals.
The plan: The National Perspective Plan of 1980 of the Ministry of Irrigation set out the framework for such transfers.
The agency: The National Water Development Agency, set up in 1982, prepares feasibility and detailed project reports for the links.
The scale: The plan identifies 30 links, comprising 16 under the peninsular component and 14 under the Himalayan component.
The judicial push: The Supreme Court in 2012 directed the Union government to implement the interlinking programme in a time bound manner and to constitute a special committee.
The first link: The Ken Betwa link is the first project taken up for implementation under the plan, with a dedicated authority created for it in 2021.
The claimed benefit: Drought proofing, flood moderation, additional irrigated area and hydropower, drawn from moving water between basins with different rainfall regimes.
Constitutional Framework Governing Water, Land and Forest Rights
Seventh Schedule, State List Entry 17: Places water supply, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments and water storage with the States, subject to Entry 56.
Seventh Schedule, Union List Entry 56: Allows Parliament to regulate and develop interstate rivers and river valleys in the public interest.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17A and 17B: Place forests, and the protection of wild animals and birds, on the Concurrent List after the 42nd Amendment.
Article 262: Empowers Parliament to provide for adjudication of interstate river water disputes and to bar the jurisdiction of courts in them.
Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read to include the right to livelihood and to a healthy environment.
Article 48A and Article 51A(g): Direct the State to protect the environment and forests, and place a corresponding fundamental duty on every citizen.
Article 244 and the Fifth Schedule: Provide for the administration of Scheduled Areas and the protection of tribal interests, including through the Tribes Advisory Council.
Article 243ZD read with Part IX: Places village level planning with the Panchayats, which is the base for consultation requirements in Scheduled Areas.
Laws and Rules Governing Displacement, Forests and River Projects
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Governs acquisition, compensation and the rehabilitation entitlements of affected families.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Requires prior central approval for diversion of forest land to non forest use, with compensatory afforestation and net present value payments.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises individual and community rights over forest land and produce for forest dwelling communities.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Governs protected areas, and provides for tiger reserves, critical tiger habitats and the National Tiger Conservation Authority.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006: Provide the environmental clearance process, including public hearing and appraisal for river valley projects.
Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996: Requires consultation with the Gram Sabha before land acquisition and resettlement in Scheduled Areas.
Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides the tribunal mechanism for adjudicating disputes over interstate river waters.
Back2Basics: Panna Tiger Reserve
Designation: A tiger reserve, listed in the Places in News record as the protected area within which the Daudhan dam is being built.
Location: Panna and Chhatarpur districts of Madhya Pradesh, on the Vindhyan range in the Bundelkhand region.
Constitution: Panna National Park was notified in 1981 and the area was declared a tiger reserve in 1994 under Project Tiger.
River: The Ken river flows through the reserve and supports its gorges, waterfalls and riverine habitat.
International recognition: It was designated a biosphere reserve and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2020.
Conservation record: Tigers became locally extinct in the reserve by 2009, and a reintroduction programme rebuilt the population, treated as a landmark recovery.
Vegetation: Tropical dry deciduous forest with teak and kardhai woodland, interspersed with grassland and plateau.
Fauna: Tiger, leopard, sloth bear, chital, chinkara, sambar and nilgai on land, with gharial, mugger and the Indian vulture along the Ken.
Landscape connectivity: It links to the Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary and the Satpura landscape, and the Panna Ranipur corridor extends toward Uttar Pradesh.
Government Initiatives
Ken Betwa Link Project Authority: The special purpose body created in 2021 to execute the link, with an interstate memorandum of agreement signed on 22 March 2021.
National Perspective Plan and the National Water Development Agency: The 1980 plan and the 1982 agency that prepare and appraise interlinking proposals.
Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana: Consolidates irrigation schemes to expand assured irrigation and improve water use efficiency at the farm level.
Atal Bhujal Yojana: Supports community led groundwater management in water stressed blocks, including in Bundelkhand districts.
Jal Jeevan Mission: Aims at functional household tap connections in rural areas, the drinking water objective the link project is meant to support.
Project Tiger and the National Tiger Conservation Authority: Provide the statutory and funding framework for tiger reserves such as Panna, including village relocation packages.
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority: Manages funds collected from forest diversion for compensatory afforestation and habitat improvement.
Key Facts about the Ken Betwa Link Project
Approval and cost: Approved by the Union Cabinet in December 2021 at a cost of about Rs 44,605 crore, with an eight year completion schedule.
The agreement: A memorandum of agreement between the Union government, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was signed on 22 March 2021, observed as World Water Day.
Annual irrigation: Designed to provide annual irrigation to about 10.62 lakh hectares across the two States.
Drinking water: Designed to supply drinking water to about 62 lakh people.
Power: Includes 103 MW of hydropower and 27 MW of solar capacity.
The dam: The Daudhan dam is about 77 metres high and about 2,031 metres long, with a tunnel system feeding the link canal.
The rivers: The Ken and the Betwa are both tributaries of the Yamuna, joining it at Banda and Hamirpur respectively in Uttar Pradesh.
The region: Bundelkhand covers 13 districts across Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and is among India’s driest and most impoverished regions.
Challenges in River Interlinking
Basin surplus is contested science: Surplus and deficit classifications rest on yield estimates that vary with the data series used. e.g. disputes over the assessed surplus of the Ken before appraisal bodies.
Ecological alteration of river regimes: Reduced downstream flow changes sediment transport, fish migration and floodplain recharge. e.g. gharial habitat along the Ken downstream of the Daudhan site.
Forest and protected area loss: Links routinely pass through forests and sanctuaries where diversion cannot be reversed. e.g. submergence of about 4,141 hectares inside the Panna Tiger Reserve.
Displacement and rehabilitation deficits: Resettlement lags construction, so families lose land before they receive an alternative. e.g. the long running rehabilitation disputes of the Sardar Sarovar project on the Narmada.
Interstate political friction: Donor States resist parting with water once a project is under way. e.g. the long deadlock over the Mahanadi and the Godavari Cauvery link proposals.
Cost and time overruns: Multi decade civil works escalate in cost, which squeezes the rehabilitation component first. e.g. the 2021 approved cost of about Rs 44,605 crore for a single link.
Climate uncertainty: Interlinking assumes stable rainfall distribution between basins, which a changing monsoon does not guarantee. e.g. simultaneous drought across both donor and recipient basins in a deficient monsoon year.
Groundwater alternatives neglected: Large transfers draw attention and funds away from cheaper local recharge and watershed options. e.g. traditional Bundelkhand tanks and chandela ponds that remain unrestored.
Way Forward
Settle forest rights first: Complete recognition of individual and community forest rights under the 2006 Act before any acquisition notification is issued.
Resettle the village as a unit: Provide a single relocation site with forest access, water and common land so that community structure survives the move, as the affected families have demanded.
Compensate the livelihood, not only the acre: Value minor forest produce income and standing trees in the entitlement package for households without titled land.
Institutionalise dialogue: Create a standing negotiation forum between the project authority, the district administration and elected village representatives, with recorded minutes.
Independent hydrological review: Publish and peer review the basin yield assessment on which the surplus classification rests, before further links are appraised.
Fund rehabilitation ahead of construction: Ring fence the rehabilitation and resettlement outlay and release it before submergence rather than after.
Restore local water systems in parallel: Revive tanks, ponds and watershed structures across Bundelkhand so that drought relief does not rest on a single project.
Compensatory afforestation in contiguous blocks: Locate the compensatory forest within the same landscape and monitor survival rates, rather than counting saplings planted.
“[2017, GS3, 10 marks] Not many years ago, river linking was a concept but it is becoming reality in the country. Discuss the advantages of river linking and its possible impact on the environment.”
A Comptroller and Auditor General audit of the Green India Mission across 16 states and union territories found a 91.87 per cent shortfall against its forest quality improvement target and a 97.57 per cent shortfall against its forest cover target over ten years. The mission received Rs 1,149.14 crore, or 47.88 per cent, of the budgetary support it was to get. The tension is between a mission carrying India’s forest carbon sink commitment and a funding and convergence design that never materialised.
What is the Green India Mission?
About: The Green India Mission is one of the eight missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, launched in 2014 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Twin targets: Increasing forest and tree cover on 5 million hectares, and improving the quality of forest cover on another 5 million hectares.
Design principle: The mission was to work through convergence with existing schemes rather than through a large standalone budget.
Climate function: It carries the forestry component of India’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.
What did the audit find on physical targets?
Quality improvement: Forest cover quality improved on only 0.11384 million hectares against a 1.4 million hectare target, a shortfall of 91.87 per cent.
Cover increase: Forest cover increased on only 0.03409 million hectares against a 1.4 million hectare target, a shortfall of 97.57 per cent.
Audit period: The audit covered 2015-16 to 2024-25 across 16 states and union territories.
Accounting failure:Eight states and union territories did not maintain annual accounts for the mission.
Why did the funding architecture fail?
Proposed requirement: The mission’s proposed funding requirement was Rs 40,600 crore.
What was approved: The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs approved Rs 2,000 crore for the first four years, alongside Rs 400 crore from Thirteenth Finance Commission grants.
What was received: Only Rs 1,149.14 crore, or 47.88 per cent of even that reduced budgetary support, reached the mission over ten years.
Structural consequence: A mission funded at under 3 per cent of its assessed requirement could not deliver targets set against the full requirement.
Why did convergence not happen?
Intended partners: Convergence was planned with the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the Nagar Van Yojana and the School Nursery Yojana.
What the audit found: These schemes operated in silos, and convergence was not achieved.
Design dependence: The mission’s low budget was justified on the assumption that convergence would supply the resources, so the failure of convergence removed the funding basis entirely.
Accountability gap: No single authority was answerable for delivering convergence across ministries.
What does this mean for India’s climate commitment?
The commitment: India’s Nationally Determined Contribution includes creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 through additional forest and tree cover.
Delivery vehicle: The Green India Mission is the principal instrument for the forestry component of that commitment.
Arithmetic problem: Cover added on 0.03409 million hectares cannot support a sink target premised on 5 million hectares.
Reporting risk: The gap between the reported forest cover figures and the audited mission achievement raises a measurement question about what counts as forest cover.
Challenges to India’s afforestation programmes
Plantation survival rates: Trees planted are counted, trees surviving are not. e.g. audits repeatedly finding low survival in compensatory afforestation plantations.
Monoculture plantation: Fast growing single species plantations raise canopy cover without restoring biodiversity. e.g. eucalyptus and acacia plantations counted as forest cover gains.
Definition of forest cover: The forest survey definition counts any land above one hectare with over 10 per cent canopy, including plantations and orchards. e.g. commercial plantations appearing as forest cover increases.
Compensatory afforestation land shortage: States lack non forest land of the required extent to compensate diversion. e.g. the accumulation of unspent Compensatory Afforestation Fund balances before the 2016 Act.
Community rights friction: Plantation on land under claim conflicts with recognised forest rights. e.g. disputes over plantation drives on land claimed under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
Convergence without an owner: Cross ministry convergence has no accountable authority. e.g. the Green India Mission’s four named partner schemes operating in silos through the audit period.
Conclusion
The mission failed because its target was set against an assessed requirement of Rs 40,600 crore while its funding was built on a convergence assumption that no authority was made accountable for delivering. The shortfall is therefore a design failure rather than an implementation lapse. The next milestone is whether the government restructures the mission’s funding or restates the forestry component of the Nationally Determined Contribution.
Back2Basics: National Action Plan on Climate Change
Launched in 2008 to outline India’s strategy on climate adaptation and mitigation.
Comprises eight national missions: Solar, Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Sustainable Habitat, Water, Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem, Green India, Sustainable Agriculture, and Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change.
Coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change.
States prepare State Action Plans on Climate Change aligned to the national missions.
The Green India Mission was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in 2014 with a mandate covering 10 million hectares in total.
Government Initiatives
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016: Governs the use of funds collected for forest land diversion, with a national authority and state authorities managing the corpus.
Nagar Van Yojana: Supports the creation of urban forests on forest or other land within municipal limits, targeting city residents and local bodies.
National Mission for a Green India: Targets 5 million hectares of new cover and 5 million hectares of quality improvement.
Mission LiFE: Promotes individual and community behaviour change on sustainable consumption.
School Nursery Yojana: Engages schools in raising seedlings to build a nursery base and environmental awareness.
Way Forward
Fund the mission against its assessed requirement: Close the gap between the Rs 40,600 crore requirement and the Rs 1,149.14 crore released, or restate the targets.
Appoint an accountable convergence authority: Name one authority answerable for delivering convergence across the four partner schemes.
Report survival, not planting: Measure achievement through third party verified survival after three years, not through saplings planted.
Separate plantation from natural forest in reporting: Report plantation area distinctly from natural forest cover so the carbon sink claim is verifiable.
Enforce annual accounts: Make release of the next instalment conditional on maintained annual accounts, since eight states did not maintain them.
“[2016] Which of the following best describes/ describe the aim of ‘Green India Mission’ of the Government of India?
1. Incorporating environmental benefits and costs into the Union and State Budgets thereby implementing the ‘green accounting’
2. Launching the second green revolution to enhance agricultural output so as to ensure food security to one and all in the future
3. Restoring and enhancing forest cover and responding to climate change by a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
A recent reflection has revisited the Supreme Court’s four-decade legacy of environmental jurisprudence. This raises questions over whether recent rulings are departing from its established environmental doctrines.
What are the core doctrines of Indian environmental law?
Absolute liability: An enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is fully liable for harm, established after the Bhopal disaster.
Polluter pays principle: The cost of pollution and remediation falls on the polluter.
Precautionary principle: Lack of scientific certainty is no reason to defer measures against environmental harm.
Public trust doctrine: The state holds natural resources as a trustee for the public.
Where do these doctrines come from constitutionally?
Article 48A: Directs the state to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g): Makes environmental protection a fundamental duty of citizens.
42nd Amendment, 1976: Inserted both provisions into the Constitution.
Article 21: Read to include the right to a clean environment.
What is the tension?
Development pull: Recent rulings are read as leaning toward clearing infrastructure over precaution.
Amnesty concern: Environmental amnesty for past violations is questioned as inconsistent with the polluter pays principle.
Consistency critique: The Court is charged with applying its own doctrines unevenly across cases.
Conclusion
The central claim is that the Court built strong environmental doctrine but now applies it inconsistently. What remains unresolved is whether the Court restores precaution as the default in development disputes.
Back2Basics
Foundational Context: environmental jurisprudence in India
Judicial origin: Much of Indian environmental law is judge-made through public interest litigation.
Landmark cases: M.C. Mehta cases, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, and the Bhopal litigation shaped the doctrines.
Sustainable development: The Court fused environmental protection with development as a constitutional balance.
Expansion of Article 21: The Supreme Court progressively interpreted the right to life to include the right to a clean, healthy and pollution-free environment
Landmark Cases
M.C. Mehta cases: Developed principles of environmental liability and protection.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Recognised the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as essential features of sustainable development.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987): Established the doctrine of absolute liability.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997): Strengthened the public trust doctrine.
PYQ Relevance
“[2010] Sustainable development is described as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In this perspective, inherently the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with which of the following concepts?
Civil society groups and mining affected communities have alleged that the Supreme Court appointed High Powered Committee (HPC) on the Aravallis left out several districts and did not adequately hear local people during its consultations. The dispute exposes the tension between expert led regulation of mining and genuine participation of the communities whose lands and livelihoods the decision will affect.
What is the High Powered Committee on the Aravallis?
Origin: The Supreme Court of India constituted a high-powered expert committee headed by Kanchan Devi to review the definition and delineation of the Aravalli hill range, guide mining regulations, and protect the fragile ecosystem from continuous environmental degradation.
Mandate: It is to submit a report that will shape decisions on mining and conservation across the range, with an August 31 deadline.
Consultation window: The panel held a 21 day period for stakeholders to submit comments, which has now ended.
Field visits: It conducted field visits in Gurgaon, Alwar, Ajmer and Udaipur between 6 and 10 August.
Why are activists challenging the consultation process?
Villages left out: The Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyan claims the HPC did not visit any mining affected villages to understand ground realities.
Urban centric hearings: Public hearings were held at urban centres that affected villagers could not reach, and information was not publicised in local newspapers, on radio, or at panchayat offices.
Lobby dominance: Around 80 percent of representations in Ajmer were pro mining, with a similar pattern elsewhere, and those speaking against mining were allegedly threatened.
Access failures: A scheduled Udaipur meeting for 10 August was moved to the evening of 9 August, making it hard for many to attend, and requested visits to villages hit by limestone mines and stone crushers did not happen.
Central demand: The group wants the HPC to seek an extension of the August 31 deadline and hold meaningful consultations across all 64 districts in Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.
What is an Eco Sensitive Zone?
Definition: An Eco Sensitive Zone is an area notified around protected areas or ecologically fragile landscapes where activities such as mining are regulated or prohibited to act as a shock absorber.
The National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) recommended that State governments identify areas within 10 km of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries for declaration as Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs).
The recommendation was to be implemented under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, under the framework of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
Relevance: Regulation of mining in the Aravallis turns on how such protective boundaries and restrictions are drawn and enforced.
Why does the Aravalli range matter for mining regulation?
Ecological role: The Aravallis are India’s oldest mountain range and act as a barrier against desertification spreading eastward from the Thar.
Mining pressure:Limestone mines, stone crushers and other extraction have degraded stretches of the range.
Legal history: Courts have repeatedly intervened to restrict illegal and unregulated mining in the range.
Livelihood stakes: Rural and Adivasi communities depend on the hills, so decisions affect both ecology and livelihoods.
Why does the mining lobby versus affected communities tension shape the outcome?
Capture risk: Hearings dominated by pro mining representations risk producing a report that understates ground level harm.
Precedent invoked: Activists demand a systematic outreach approach similar to the one adopted a decade ago by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, which held direct public hearings.
Intimidation: Alleged threats to those opposing mining undermine the credibility of the consultation.
Deadline pressure: A fixed August 31 deadline discourages the fuller consultation the communities are demanding.
Conclusion
The current status is a contested consultation process, with affected communities demanding a deadline extension and direct village level hearings before the HPC finalises its report to the Supreme Court. The dispute turns on whether expert regulation of Aravalli mining can be legitimate without hearing the people most affected by it. The next milestone is whether the committee seeks an extension or submits its report by August 31 as scheduled.
Back2Basics:
Foundational Context: Mining in India
About: Mining is the extraction of minerals from the earth and is regulated as a hazard prone activity with significant environmental impact.
Scale: India produces a range of major and minor minerals, with states such as Rajasthan, Odisha and Jharkhand holding large reserves.
Environmental impact: Mining causes deforestation, dust and air pollution, groundwater depletion, and land degradation.
Governance: Mineral development is regulated under central law with clearances layered across environment, forest and pollution statutes.
Statutory Framework Governing Mining and the Aravallis
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The principal law regulating the mining sector and grant of mineral concessions.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Enables environmental clearances and the notification of Eco Sensitive Zones.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Requires clearance before diverting forest land for mining.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Regulates dust and emissions from mining and crushing.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Provides the forum for adjudicating mining and environmental disputes.
The Aravalli Range
Designation: India’s oldest fold mountain range, running across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
Location and extent: Stretches roughly 690 kilometres from Delhi to Gujarat, with Guru Shikhar as its highest peak.
Ecological function: Acts as a natural barrier checking the eastward spread of the Thar desert and supports groundwater recharge.
Distinguishing feature: Hosts unique biodiversity and forms the watershed for several rivers.
Current concern: Threatened by illegal mining, stone crushing and encroachment.
Government Initiatives for Aravalli and Land Restoration
Aravalli Green Wall Project: Initiative to create a green belt along the range to combat land degradation and desertification.
Compensatory Afforestation Fund: Funds afforestation to offset forest land diverted for mining and other uses.
National Afforestation Programme: Supports regeneration of degraded forest land.
Desertification action: India’s commitments under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification guide land restoration.
Key Facts about the Aravallis and Mining
Districts covered: The HPC’s mandate spans 64 districts across five states.
Oldest range: The Aravallis are among the oldest mountain systems in the world.
Deadline: The committee faces an August 31 report deadline.
Precedent: The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel is cited as a model of participatory consultation.
Weak consultation: Affected rural and Adivasi communities are inadequately heard.
Enforcement gaps: Overlapping jurisdictions weaken monitoring of mining bans.
Encroachment: Construction and settlement erode the range.
Desertification risk: Degradation of the range threatens its role as a desert barrier.
Intimidation of activists: Reported threats deter local opposition to mining.
Way Forward
Direct village outreach: Hold public hearings in affected villages, not only urban centres.
Extend timelines: Allow adequate consultation before finalising a decision of this scale.
Strengthen enforcement: Deploy satellite monitoring and strict penalties against illegal mining.
Protect participants: Ensure safety for community members opposing mining.
Restore degraded land: Scale up afforestation and green wall efforts across the range.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2025] Mineral resources are fundamental to the country economy and these are exploited by mining. Why is mining considered an environmental hazard? Explain the remedial measures required to reduce the environmental hazard due to mining.
Linkage: The PYQ directly connects with the environmental hazards of mining and remedial measures for sustainable mineral extraction. The Aravalli case highlights illegal mining, ecological degradation, weak enforcement and the need for participatory conservation.
A gazette order of 10 August from the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) has removed the blanket declaration in the 2016 law that the Ganga flood plain is a construction free zone, replacing the total ban with a stratified, approval based regime. The change exposes the tension between protecting the river’s ecology and permitting development in areas subject only to moderate or rare flooding.
What is the River Ganga Authorities Order that was amended?
Instrument: The River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016, notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, governs protection and management of the river.
Original ban: The 2016 order declared the bank of the river and its flood plain a construction free zone to reduce pollution and preserve natural groundwater recharge.
What the amendment does: The 10 August order deletes the no construction clause and replaces the total ban with a regulated system in which some construction is permissible after official clearances.
How does the new stratified definition of a flood plain work?
Active flood plain: The zone immediately along the channel that submerges at least once every five years, where strict building prohibitions continue, with minor exceptions for temporary set ups such as religious events.
Regulatory zone: The middle band subject to moderate flooding once every five to 25 years, where construction is now permissible subject to clearances.
Warning zone: The outer periphery that floods only during severe events of 25 to 100 year frequency, where construction is also now permissible subject to clearances.
Earlier gap: The 2016 order banned construction in the active flood plain but never defined what active meant, an inconsistency the amendment claims to correct.
Why did the government amend the order?
Stated rationale: A senior official said the amendment does not dilute standards but corrects an inconsistency in the law between the flood plain definition and the construction ban.
Litigation pressure: Litigants had routinely cited the blanket construction free zone mandate against riverfront roads, embankments and sewage treatment plants before the National Green Tribunal.
Scope limit: The new order does not grant blanket permission for development and keeps a regulated approval process in place.
Does the change protect the river or dilute safeguards?
The protection case: Confining strict prohibition to the active flood plain leaves the ecologically most sensitive channel margin protected while allowing regulated use elsewhere.
The dilution concern: Opening the regulatory and warning zones to construction reduces the natural groundwater recharge and pollution buffer the 2016 order sought to preserve.
Enforcement risk: An approval based system shifts protection from a clear legal bar to case by case clearances that depend on administrative capacity and vigilance.
What are the challenges to regulating the Ganga flood plain?
Encroachment pressure: Dense settlement and commercial demand along the river make flood plains attractive for construction.
Weak demarcation: Flood plain zoning requires accurate hydrological mapping that is incomplete across the basin.
Fragmented jurisdiction: Multiple states, municipal bodies and agencies share authority over the river, complicating uniform enforcement.
Climate variability: Changing flood frequencies undermine fixed five, 25 and 100 year return period assumptions.
Pollution load: Untreated sewage and industrial effluent continue to enter the river despite protection orders.
Conclusion
The amendment ends the 2016 blanket ban on flood plain construction and installs a three zone regime that permits regulated building beyond the five year flood line after clearances. The government frames this as correcting a legal inconsistency, while the ecological question is whether an approval based system can protect the river’s recharge and pollution buffer as effectively as an outright prohibition did. The next test lies in how clearances are granted and whether active flood plain protection holds against development pressure.
Back2Basics:
Foundational Context: Ganga Rejuvenation in India
About: Ganga rejuvenation is a national programme to abate pollution and conserve and rejuvenate the river through sewage treatment, riverfront management and flow protection.
Scale: The Ganga basin covers roughly one fourth of India’s land area and supports a large share of the population.
Institutional design: The effort is coordinated by the National Mission for Clean Ganga under the National Ganga Council, with the Jal Shakti Ministry as the nodal ministry.
Approach: It combines infrastructure such as sewage treatment plants with regulatory tools such as flood plain zoning and construction control.
Statutory Framework Governing the Ganga
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: The parent statute under which the 2016 River Ganga Authorities Order and its amendment are notified.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Establishes pollution control boards that regulate effluent discharge into the river.
River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016: Creates the tiered institutional structure, including the National Ganga Council and NMCG, and governs flood plain regulation.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Constitutes the forum where flood plain and riverfront disputes are adjudicated.
National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG)
Nature: Implementation wing for Ganga rejuvenation and the Namami Gange programme.
Governing framework: Registered as a society and given statutory backing through the River Ganga Authorities Order, 2016.
Parent body: Functions under the National Ganga Council, chaired by the Prime Minister.
Nodal ministry: Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation under the Jal Shakti Ministry.
Mandate: Ensures effective abatement of pollution and rejuvenation of the river by adopting a comprehensive, basin wide approach.
Government Initiatives / Schemes for Ganga Rejuvenation
Namami Gange Programme: Integrated conservation mission covering sewage treatment, riverfront development, afforestation and biodiversity.
Arth Ganga: Model to build a sustainable economic bridge between the river and people through livelihoods, tourism and natural farming along the banks.
Ganga Gram: Programme for sanitation and solid waste management in villages along the river.
Jal Shakti Abhiyan: Water conservation campaign that supports groundwater recharge in the basin.
Key Facts about the Ganga
Length: The river runs roughly 2,525 kilometres from Gomukh to the Bay of Bengal.
National River: The Ganga was declared India’s National River in 2008.
Flood plain zones: The amended order recognises active, regulatory and warning zones based on five, 25 and 100 year flood frequencies.
Dolphin link: The Gangetic dolphin, the National Aquatic Animal, depends on healthy river flow.
Challenges in Ganga Conservation
Sewage burden: A large volume of untreated urban sewage continues to reach the river.
Industrial effluent: Tanneries and other industries discharge pollutants along the course.
Reduced flow: Barrages, abstraction and diversion lower ecological flow in stretches.
Flood plain encroachment: Construction and settlement erode the river’s natural buffer.
Coordination gaps: Multiple states and agencies weaken uniform enforcement.
Solid waste and religious use: Immersion waste and idol immersion add pollution loads.
Way Forward
Complete flood plain mapping: Finalise accurate zonation to make the three tier regime enforceable.
Strengthen sewage treatment: Close the gap between sewage generated and treatment capacity.
Ensure ecological flow: Mandate minimum environmental flows across barrages.
Tighten clearance scrutiny: Apply strict, transparent conditions before approving construction in regulatory and warning zones.
Empower basin governance: Reinforce NMCG and state bodies with clear enforcement powers.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2015] Discuss the Namami Gange and National mission for clean Ganga (NMCG) programmes and causes of mixed results from the previous schemes. What quantum leaps can help preserve the river Ganga better than incremental inputs?
Linkage: The PYQ directly connects with Ganga rejuvenation, conservation and the effectiveness of government interventions. The flood plain amendment highlights the challenge of balancing river conservation, pollution control and development pressures.
The Forest Department has issued eviction notices to thousands of households in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR) following a Supreme Court order for time-bound removal of forest encroachments. The issue highlights the tension between forest conservation and rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
What is the Forest Rights Act, 2006?
Full name: Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
Recognises forest rights of Scheduled Tribes (STs) and other traditional forest dwellers.
Cut-off: Eligible occupation must pre-date 13 December 2005.
Claims are initiated and verified by Gram Sabhas and examined by higher-level committees.
Key safeguard: Eviction cannot take place until recognition and verification are completed.
What is the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve?
ABR: Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve.
Covers about 3,500 sq km across Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Includes Kalakkad-Mundanthurai, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai and Periyar Tiger Reserves, along with wildlife sanctuaries.
What is the Central Empowered Committee?
CEC: Central Empowered Committee.
Constituted under Supreme Court directions to monitor forest and environmental compliance.
It surveyed the Agasthyamalai landscape and reported violations involving non-forestry activities.
Who are Other Traditional Forest Dwellers?
OTFDs: Other Traditional Forest Dwellers.
Non-tribal communities primarily dependent on forests for livelihood.
They must demonstrate three generations or 75 years of dependence before 13 December 2005.
What did the Supreme Court order?
Time-bound eviction plan, with rehabilitation where applicable.
Legal action against wilful violators, including 118 government servants found to be encroachers.
Ecological restoration after eviction.
No new forest diversion or non-forest activity in ABR until encroachments are removed.
Possible deployment of paramilitary forces for enforcement.
Key Issue: Conservation vs Forest Rights
Conservation: Evictions aim to restore critical tiger habitat and remove non-forest activities.
Rights concern: Eviction before completion of FRA recognition and verification can violate statutory safeguards.
Data problem: Lack of reliable data on occupation outside FRA’s scope makes it difficult to distinguish genuine rights-holders from actual encroachers.
WLPA, 1972: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, governs protected areas.
PESA, 1996: Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, strengthens Gram Sabha powers in Scheduled Areas.
SC/ST PoA Act, 1989: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Back2Basics: Forest Rights Act
Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Tribal Affairs.
Beneficiaries: Forest-dwelling STs and eligible OTFDs.
Three rights: Individual forest rights, community rights and Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights.
Gram Sabha: Starting point for claims.
Key safeguard: No eviction before completion of recognition and verification.
“[2021] At the national level, which ministry is the nodal agency to ensure effective implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006?
(a) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
India’s Asiatic lion population increased from 523 in 2015 to 891 in 2025, the highest recorded count. Project Lion, launched in 2020, aims to strengthen conservation of the species and its Gir landscape.
What is Project Lion?
Launched: 2020 for long-term conservation of the Asiatic lion.
Focus: Habitat improvement, disease surveillance, scientific monitoring and community participation.
Tools: Radio-collaring, camera traps and genetic/gene-pool conservation.
Need: The entire wild population is concentrated in one landscape, creating a major single-population risk.
Latest Population Status
2015: 523 lions
2025: 891 lions
Key concern: Many lions now occur outside protected areas, increasing human-wildlife conflict.
Habitat: Gir is approaching its carrying capacity, strengthening the case for a second home.
Back2Basics: Asiatic Lion
Scientific name:Panthera leo persica
IUCN: Endangered
CITES: Appendix I
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Schedule I
Only wild population: India
Natural range: Gir landscape, Gujarat
Proposed second home:Barda Wildlife Sanctuary, Porbandar.
Why is a Second Home Needed?
Single-site risk: Disease or disaster in Gir could threaten the entire species.
Habitat saturation: Increasing population is pushing lions beyond protected areas.
Human-wildlife conflict: Greater interaction with people and livestock.
Disease risk: Outbreaks such as Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) can threaten large carnivores.
Habitat fragmentation: Mining, roads and railways can disrupt dispersal corridors.
Statutory Framework
WLPA, 1972: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, provides legal protection to wildlife.
