Context:

• Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has gone beyond simply checking whether government decisions are lawful and has started issuing detailed, forward-looking directions in major environmental cases.
• This has often happened because regulators failed to act properly, forcing the Court to step in.
• However, instead of fixing the regulatory process and then withdrawing, the Court has continued to play a supervisory role.
• This prolonged involvement blurs the line between judging and regulating, creates uncertainty for governments and regulated industries, and can weaken accountability. The approach, while well-intentioned, needs restraint.
• This article highlights how the Court’s growing role in issuing forward-looking environmental directions has blurred the line between judging and governing, creating uncertainty, accountability gaps, and institutional strain.

How Supreme Court Environmental Rulings Have Shifted Over Time?

• Broad Rules, Later Modified
  • In 2022, the Court ordered a minimum 1-km eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around all protected areas.
  • By 2023, it softened this rule, exempting areas where the Environment Ministry had already issued ESZ notifications, after States said a blanket rule was impractical.
• Vehicle Bans: From Strict to Flexible
  • In 2015, the Court banned registration of large diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR.
  • Less than a year later, it lifted the ban and replaced it with a compensatory charge.
  • In 2025, it again began with a broad protection for older vehicles, then narrowed it to apply only to those below BS-IV standards.
• Firecracker Restrictions
  • The Court followed a similar pattern on firecrackers—sometimes imposing near-total bans due to air pollution, then relaxing them for festivals and “green crackers”, citing enforcement and public order challenges.
• Stepping Into the Regulator’s Role
  • Weak enforcement, delayed rules, and poor monitoring by authorities often prompted judicial intervention.
  • Instead of fixing regulatory failures, the Court frequently took over regulatory decision-making itself.
• From Legal Principles to Managing Consequences
  • In Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), the Court initially ruled that post-facto environmental clearances violate core principles.
  • Months later, it reversed course, worried about disrupting ongoing projects—showing a shift from legal doctrine to managing practical fallout.
• Key Concern
  • The pattern reflects a move from judging legality to governing outcomes, where strong principles are announced first and adjusted later—raising questions about consistency and institutional limits.

The Problem of Expertise in Court-Led Environmental Decisions

• Relying on Experts — Then Reconsidering
  • When the Court issues forward-looking environmental directions, it often depends on expert committees.
  • For example, in the Aravalli hills case, the Court adopted a unified definition to regulate mining based on expert findings.
  • Soon after, it paused the order and set up a new committee, fearing unintended legal consequences.
  • This shows how expert advice is used, questioned, and sometimes reversed.
• One-Size-Fits-All Rules Don’t Always Work
  • In the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) issue, a uniform buffer initially appeared decisive.
  • But as stakeholders highlighted differences in ecology and feasibility across regions, resistance grew.
  • What sounded scientifically sound on paper proved difficult to apply everywhere.
• A Push-Pull with Expertise
  • The Court uses expert inputs to overcome its own technical limits, but it also challenges or re-evaluates that expertise.
  • This back-and-forth is not inherently wrong, but it has led to frequent course corrections and uncertainty.
• Early Court Intervention Limits Public Challenge
  • A bigger concern is the Court acting like an approving authority too early. As environmental experts note, project developers and governments often approach the Court before statutory regulators finish their review.
  • This gives decisions a sense of finality that discourages later challenges.
  • When the Court steps in early, it can weaken meaningful scrutiny by other forums.
  • Later changes to Court-made rules then reshape who gets heard and what evidence matters—narrowing space for public participation and legal review.

Why Environmental Governance Needs Stability and Clear Roles?

• Many environmental cases continue under ongoing court supervision, with repeated interim orders and changes. While this makes course correction easy, it often creates uncertainty.
• Instead, the Court could take a steadier approach by pushing governments to do their regulatory job properly rather than managing it itself.
• This means setting clear limits on when the Court will intervene, demanding time-bound action backed by data and reasons, and focusing on reviewing legality and procedure.
• Avoiding broad rules that need quick exceptions would also bring clarity.
• Such an approach would create predictable rules for businesses, reduce confusion for governments, and give citizens a clear path to challenge environmental harm.