The Declining State of India’s Environmental Jurisprudence

Amid developmental pressures, India’s judiciary is perceived as compromising environmental protections, raising concerns for ecological justice.

Gopi

•February 6, 2026•5 mins read

Aravalli Protection Undermined by Height-Based Definitions

Not Started

1. Constitutional Context: Environmental Justice at a Crossroads

India’s environmental governance stands at a critical inflection point, where the constitutional promise of ecological protection is increasingly at odds with development-centric policy shifts. The dilution of safeguards — from the Aravallis to coastal mangroves — signals an erosion of the environmental jurisprudence built over decades.

Recent policy changes allowing Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) without specific land details reflect a deeper structural retreat from preventive environmental governance. This reverses earlier positions that insisted on site-specific scrutiny as a precondition to land acquisition and project approval.

The Supreme Court’s recall of its own judgment in Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), which had banned retrospective environmental clearances, highlighted internal judicial inconsistency. Although the order was later stayed suo motu, the episode revealed vulnerability in safeguards traditionally protected by the judiciary.

Such shifts weaken Article 21's expansive interpretation of the right to a clean environment and threaten to convert Article 48A into a symbolic commitment rather than an operational constitutional duty.

2. Aravalli Ranges: Judicial Shifts and Ecological Consequences

The Aravallis, one of the world’s oldest mountain systems, perform vital ecological functions: preventing desertification, supporting groundwater recharge, moderating micro-climates, and sustaining biodiversity. Historically, courts have recognised this significance, imposing bans on mining (M.C. Mehta, 2004) and rejecting height-based definitions that excluded large ecologically sensitive areas.

The acceptance of the 100-metre elevation criterion in In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills (2025) marked a departure from the Court’s 2010 position, which had rejected height-based reductionism. This change risks eliminating protection for low-altitude ridges crucial for soil stability and hydrological balance in semi-arid zones.

It also undermines the precautionary principle, earlier upheld in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996), where the Court resisted arbitrary ecological thresholds.

Ignoring geomorphological interdependence in favour of restrictive definitions results in the exclusion of large ecologically significant landscapes, weakening conservation outcomes and violating constitutional reasonableness under Article 14.

Impacts:

Exclusion of ecologically crucial low-height ridges
Legal protection removed from large portions of the range
Increased vulnerability to mining, construction, and land-use change

3. Coastal and Urban Ecology: Mangroves under Pressure

Mumbai’s mangroves — vital for flood control, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity — have faced recurrent threats from infrastructure expansion. Judicial approvals for felling 34,000 mangrove trees on the assurance of compensatory afforestation disregard the slow ecological maturation required to restore such ecosystems.

Cases such as the approval of mangrove destruction for Adani Cementation Limited (2025) reflect a pattern where mitigation promises override ecological precaution. Given the long regeneration cycles of mangrove ecosystems, such decisions pose irreversible impacts on urban flood resilience.

Further, the reliance on transplantation and offset plantations contradicts established ecological science, which warns that mangroves cannot be recreated rapidly nor elsewhere with comparable ecological functionality.

If the judiciary legitimises large-scale destruction based on compensatory claims, environmental governance becomes reactive, weakening constitutional safeguards under Articles 21, 14, 48A, and 51A(g).

Key Ecological Roles of Mangroves:

Natural flood barriers
Buffers against storm surges
High carbon sink potential
Critical biodiversity reservoirs

4. Himalayan Fragility: Char Dham Project and Judicial Balancing

The Himalayas constitute one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems. Large-scale linear infrastructure projects, particularly the Char Dham highway, have heightened ecological stress. A June 2025 study identified 811 landslide zones associated with the project, indicating the serious implications of slope destabilisation and deforestation.

Despite recognising ecological importance in Citizens for Green Doon (2021), the Court permitted wider roads citing strategic defence needs. This revealed the inherent tension between national security and environmental sustainability.

Subsequent landslides and flash floods in Uttarakhand underline the cascading consequences of inadequate ecological due diligence and the limits of post-hoc mitigation.

Long-term ecological costs, once triggered in mountain ecosystems, are often irreversible and compound rapidly, challenging both disaster management and inter-generational equity.

Challenges:

Landslide vulnerability
Hydrological disruption
Risk to river systems
Loss of forest cover and biodiversity

5. Regulatory Weakening: EIA Dilution and Post-Facto Clearance Trend

The EIA regime, a cornerstone of preventive environmental regulation, has witnessed significant dilution. Allowing EIAs without location-specific details reduces the scrutiny necessary to assess ecological impact accurately.

Judicial openness to post-facto clearances, despite earlier warnings in Common Cause vs Union of India (2017), has weakened deterrence against environmental violations. This shift normalises procedural lapses and gradually erodes regulatory integrity.

Project hearings — often short and inattentive to objections — reinforce concerns that environmental compliance is becoming a checklist formality rather than a substantive safeguard.

Leniency towards procedural violations reduces accountability, undermines public trust, and elevates the risk of irreversible ecological harm.

Results of Weakening EIAs:

Lower transparency
Reduced public participation
Higher risk of irreversible ecological loss
Normalisation of retrospective approvals

6. Corporate Power, Procedural Fairness, and Constitutional Equality

Large corporations and capital-intensive projects in sectors such as mining, highways, and urban redevelopment often navigate clearance processes with relative ease. This raises concerns about unequal access, procedural opacity, and differential treatment under Article 14.

Hearings curtailed or objections dismissed as obstructionist weaken democratic participation in environmental decision-making. Concentrated economic influence risks shaping environmental governance disproportionately in favour of powerful actors.

Judicial acceptance of projects despite ecological concerns contradicts the public trust doctrine, articulated in M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996), which holds the state as a trustee of natural resources for public benefit.

Perceived bias in favour of economically influential actors undermines constitutional equality, weakens environmental justice, and reduces community confidence in regulatory institutions.

Risks:

Marginalisation of affected communities
Reduced accountability
Erosion of environmental jurisprudence

Conclusion

Environmental dilution across ecosystems — mountains, mangroves, and urban landscapes — reflects a systemic weakening of constitutional safeguards and judicial consistency. Reasserting the precautionary principle, strengthening EIAs, institutionalising Green Benches, and ensuring transparency in clearances are essential for aligning development with ecological sustainability. A governance framework that protects natural systems ultimately strengthens long-term economic resilience and inter-generational equity.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Conceptual shift in environmental governance:
The evolving approach towards the Aravalli ranges reflects a deeper shift in India’s environmental governance—from an ecology-centric understanding to a more formalistic and development-oriented interpretation. Historically, the Aravallis were treated as an integrated geomorphological and ecological system. Judicial pronouncements such as M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2004) recognised their critical role in preventing desertification, recharging groundwater, regulating micro-climates, and sustaining biodiversity. This approach aligned with the precautionary principle, prioritising ecological functions over narrow technical classifications.

Departure from established jurisprudence:
The acceptance of a 100-metre height-based definition of the Aravallis in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges (2025) marks a sharp departure from earlier rulings that rejected such artificial limits. By focusing solely on elevation, large tracts of ecologically significant landforms—ridges, low hills, and catchment areas—are excluded from protection. This reductionist approach ignores hydrology, soil stability, and ecological interdependence, thereby weakening the very objective of conservation.

Broader implications:
This shift reveals a changing perception of environmental protection as a negotiable constraint rather than a constitutional obligation. It signals that environmental safeguards can be diluted to accommodate development pressures, particularly from mining and infrastructure projects. For UPSC analysis, this raises fundamental questions about whether environmental law in India is moving away from substantive ecological protection towards procedural compliance, with long-term consequences for sustainability and inter-generational equity.

Erosion of preventive safeguards:
The shift towards allowing land acquisition before conducting a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), particularly for non-coal mining projects, undermines the preventive nature of environmental regulation. Traditionally, the EIA process served as an anticipatory tool to assess ecological damage before irreversible decisions were taken. Conducting EIAs without precise details about location and area dilutes their scientific and legal credibility, turning them into post-facto justifications rather than decision-making instruments.

Judicial leniency and its impact:
The recall of the progressive judgment in Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), which had barred retrospective environmental clearances, reflects judicial accommodation of executive convenience. This stands in contrast to earlier rulings such as Common Cause vs Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court emphasised that environmental violations cannot be legalised after the fact. Such leniency weakens the deterrent value of environmental law and emboldens non-compliance by powerful economic actors.

Constitutional implications:
These changes directly affect the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21, and dilute the directive under Article 48A. When environmental safeguards are compromised for expediency, the Constitution risks becoming a passive observer to ecological degradation. From an interview perspective, this highlights a conflict between constitutional morality and growth-centric governance, raising questions about the credibility of India’s environmental justice framework.

Issue of arbitrariness:
Providing environmental protection based on technical classifications like a 100-metre height threshold raises serious constitutional concerns under Article 14. Such a classification lacks a rational nexus with ecological objectives. Ecosystems do not function according to elevation alone; low-lying hills, ridges, and surrounding landscapes often play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, soil stability, and biodiversity conservation, especially in semi-arid regions like north-western India.

Conflict with environmental jurisprudence:
Indian environmental jurisprudence has consistently favoured holistic and science-based approaches. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court adopted the precautionary principle, rejecting artificial limits that could undermine ecological protection. By reverting to a narrow, height-centric definition, recent judicial approaches contradict established principles and earlier acknowledgements of ecological complexity in the Aravallis.

Broader constitutional consequences:
Such selective protection also weakens the enforceability of Article 48A and the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g). It creates a precedent where environmental safeguards can be selectively applied, often favouring economically powerful interests. From a critical standpoint, this approach risks normalising ecological exclusion and undermining the Constitution’s commitment to non-arbitrariness, sustainability, and inter-generational justice.

Ecological uniqueness of mangroves:
Mangroves are complex, multi-layered ecosystems that provide critical services such as carbon sequestration, storm surge protection, flood control, and biodiversity conservation. Judicial approvals for the destruction of mangroves—such as the clearing of 158 mangroves for industrial projects and the felling or transplantation of tens of thousands of trees in Mumbai—highlight a growing reliance on compensatory afforestation as a justification for ecological loss.

Scientific and practical limitations:
Compensatory afforestation assumes ecological substitutability, which is scientifically flawed. Mature mangrove ecosystems take decades to develop and depend on specific tidal, salinity, and sediment conditions that cannot be replicated easily elsewhere. Planting saplings in distant locations does not compensate for the loss of coastal protection and urban flood mitigation, especially in climate-vulnerable cities like Mumbai.

Governance and constitutional concerns:
Allowing large-scale mangrove destruction on promises of future mitigation weakens environmental accountability and contradicts the public trust doctrine articulated in M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996). For UPSC interviews, this example demonstrates how procedural compliance can overshadow substantive ecological outcomes, raising questions about whether India’s environmental governance prioritises long-term resilience over short-term infrastructural gains.

Ecological sensitivity of the Himalayas:
The Char Dham highway project in Uttarakhand traverses one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems. A 2025 study identifying 811 landslide-prone zones along the project corridor underscores the inherent risks of large-scale road widening in the Himalayas. The region’s geology, steep slopes, and river systems make it particularly vulnerable to landslides and flash floods.

Judicial balancing act:
In Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court acknowledged the ecological importance of the area but allowed wider roads citing strategic and defence needs. While national security considerations are legitimate, subsequent ecological disturbances and floods have raised doubts about whether the balance struck adequately accounted for long-term environmental costs and disaster risks.

Inter-generational implications:
The Char Dham case illustrates the dangers of prioritising immediate infrastructural goals over ecological sustainability. It raises critical questions about inter-generational equity, especially when constitutional duties under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) emphasise environmental protection. For UPSC analysis, the project serves as a case study in the limits of mitigation-based development in ecologically sensitive zones.

Traditional role of the judiciary:
Historically, Indian courts have been proactive custodians of environmental rights, expanding constitutional interpretation to include environmental protection within Article 21. Landmark judgments such as M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996) embedded doctrines like public trust and sustainable development into Indian law, ensuring that natural resources were protected from private exploitation.

Shift towards accommodation:
Recent judicial trends, including acceptance of diluted definitions and post-facto clearances, suggest a shift towards accommodating development imperatives. When courts approve projects that degrade ecosystems or weaken procedural safeguards, they risk contradicting their own jurisprudence. This not only affects environmental outcomes but also erodes public trust in constitutional accountability.

Need for institutional reform:
The article’s call for regular sittings of the Supreme Court’s Green Bench and the establishment of similar benches in High Courts reflects the need to re-centre environmental justice within the judiciary. For UPSC interviews, this underscores that environmental protection is not merely a policy issue but a constitutional responsibility requiring vigilant judicial oversight.