1.Supreme Court Environmental Governance (Environmental Judicial Review)
What & Where
Supreme Court green governance: proactive, policy-shaping environmental adjudication via continuing mandamus
Key tools: precautionary principle, polluter-pays, public trust, inter-generational equity
Geography: pan-India jurisdiction; 2025 flashpoints — Aravallis, Delhi-NCR, Hyderabad
Quick Facts for MCQs
Legal & Policy
- Vanashakti review permitted ex post facto clearances; marked doctrinal U-turn
- Aravalli order redefined hills < 100 m excluded; later stayed by coordinate bench
- Stray Dog case shifted from relocation to sterilisation-release balancing safety, welfare
Environmental Jurisprudence Gains
- Article 21 linkage elevates clean environment to fundamental right, non-derogable
- Precautionary halts prevented irreversible loss; example bustard power-line undergrounding
- Polluter-Pays enforced; tanneries liable for restoration costs in Vellore Monitoring Committee 2025
Operational Challenges
- Judicial micromanagement blurs separation; smog-tower directions intruded CAQM domain
- Frequent reversals erode predictability, deter long-term investment
- Expert committee churn lowers scientific consistency, prolongs dispute resolution
Suggested Reforms
- Non-Regression principle to bar dilution of existing safeguards
- Strengthen SPCBs, CAQM, NGT staffing to reduce Court dependence
- Focus on accountability—penalise officials misusing CAMPA funds instead of designing projects
Key Data Points
| Feature | Data-Point |
|---|---|
| Peak reversal year | 2025 |
| Case allowing post-facto EC | Vanashakti v. Union |
| Body repeatedly directed | CAQM (Delhi-NCR) |
| Expanded doctrine | Public trust |
| Constitutional hook | Article 21 |
Related UPSC Prelims PYQs
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was enacted in consonance with which of the following provisions of the Constitution of India?
How is the National Green Tribunal (NGT) different from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)?






