Environmental Justice and Legal Developments in India
The article discusses the ongoing dilution of environmental protection in India, highlighting recent judicial decisions and government actions that undermine ecological conservation in favor of development.
Judicial Decisions and Environmental Protection
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Policy Change:
- As of December 18, 2025, non-coal mining projects can proceed with an EIA without detailed information on location and area.
- Supreme Court Actions:
- The Supreme Court recalled the progressive judgment in Vanashakti vs Union Of India (2025), which banned retrospective environmental clearances, indicating a dilution of environmental justice.
- CJI Justice Surya Kant intervened to stay a controversial order, attempting to safeguard the court's reputation.
- Specific Cases Highlighting Trend:
- Judicial sanction was given for the destruction of 158 mangroves for Adani Cementation Limited in Maharashtra.
- Environmentally unfriendly projects like the Char Dham highway in the Himalayas have raised concerns about government prioritization of development over ecological health.
Case Study: The Aravalli Ranges
- Ecological Importance:
- The Aravallis help in checking desertification, enhancing groundwater recharge, controlling micro-climates, and maintaining biodiversity.
- Judicial Interpretations:
- In the past, courts recognized the importance of the Aravallis without imposing height-based restrictions.
- The 2025 acceptance of a 100-meter definition for legal protection marked a deviation from previous rulings, potentially exposing significant ecological areas to exploitation.
Broader Implications and Criticisms
- Constitutional and Legal Concerns:
- The right to a clean environment under Article 21 and the obligation under Article 48A are undermined by arbitrary judicial interpretations.
- Environmental Governance Issues:
- Environmental clearances for large-scale projects are often granted without adequate compliance checks, raising doubts about procedural fairness and transparency under Article 14.
Conclusion and Recommendations
- Call for Judicial Responsibility:
- The judiciary is urged to revert to its role as a custodian of environmental rights and ensure consistent application of the public trust doctrine.
- The establishment of regular Green Benches in the Supreme Court and High Courts is recommended to safeguard environmental justice.
