Context

• Recent judicial developments in 2025 and 2026, the Supreme Court of India's proactive role in environmental protection—termed "green governance"—has become a significant cause for regulatory and legal uncertainty
• Supreme Court has increasingly adopted a managerial role in environmental governance, issuing regulatory-style directives amid regulatory failures, but this shift risks creating uncertainty rather than stability.
• Recent analyses highlight how doctrinal flip-flops and ongoing judicial oversight blur constitutional boundaries and weaken institutions

 
The Concept of "Green Governance" Uncertainty

• Court’s shift from reviewing the legality of administrative actions to becoming a quasi-regulator.
• By issuing detailed, forward-looking directions, the Court often substitutes its own management for that of statutory bodies like the Pollution Control Boards or the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). 

Key Reasons for Uncertainty in 2025–2026

• The "Broad Rule-Relaxation" Arc: The Court frequently announces sweeping, principled rules but later modifies them due to implementation difficulties or economic fallout.
• Ex Post Facto Clearances: In May 2025, the Court banned retrospective environmental clearances as illegal. By November 2025, it recalled this judgment, citing "devastating" economic consequences for public investment.
• Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ): A 2022 mandate for a uniform 1km buffer around all protected areas was diluted in 2023 after states argued it was impractical.
• Consequences-Based Reasoning: Judicial decisions are increasingly based on managing outcomes and economic fallout rather than strict legal principles, treating doctrine as a negotiable starting point.
• The Expertise Paradox: The Court relies heavily on expert committees but often contests or replaces their findings when unintended legal effects emerge—as seen in the Aravalli Hills mining case, where a unified definition was adopted and then promptly placed in abeyance.
• Continuing Mandamus: Keeping cases open for decades through serial interim orders allows for flexibility but often undermines long-term regulatory stability. 

 
Shift in the Supreme Court’s Role in Environmental Governance

1. From Reviewing Legality to Managerial Governance

• Historically, the Court reviewed the legality of administrative decisions. Today, it increasingly issues forward-looking, sector-wide directions that resemble policy-making. 
• Continuing Mandamus: Using this procedural device, the Court keeps environmental cases open for decades (e.g., the M.C. Mehta air pollution and T.N. Godavarman forest cases), issuing serial interim orders and monitoring compliance.
• Regulatory Substitution: Instead of merely disciplining ineffective regulators, the Court often steps into their shoes, acting as an approving authority for projects before statutory processes are even complete. 

2. Emergence of New Fundamental Rights

• The Court has significantly expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life) to incorporate broader ecological guarantees. 
• Right Against Climate Change: In the landmark 2024–2025 ruling M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, the Court articulated a distinct fundamental right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
• Rights-Based Jurisprudence: Environmental protection is no longer just a statutory requirement but a non-derogable constitutional obligation linked to human dignity and equality. 

3. Recent Jurisprudential Inconsistency (2025–2026)

A defining feature of the current landscape is the "shift and recall" pattern, where the Court issues sweeping rules only to narrow or reverse them months later due to feasibility concerns. 

• Ex Post Facto Clearances: In May 2025 (Vanashakti v. Union of India), the Court banned retrospective environmental clearances as an "anathema" to the precautionary principle. However, in November 2025, it recalled this stance in a 2:1 majority, citing the need to prevent "devastating" economic consequences for multi-crore public projects already nearing completion.
• Aravalli Hills Definition: In early 2025, the Court adopted a geomorphology-based definition for the Aravallis (100-meter local relief). Following public controversy over its impact on mining, it stayed its own order in late 2025, pending further expert evaluation scheduled for January 2026. 

4. Integration of Technology and AI

As of 2026, the Court is moving toward a more technologically-driven approach to overcome evidentiary gaps. 

• AI and Monitoring: The Court has increasingly relied on AI-supported analytics, satellite imagery, and digital dashboards (like the PARIVESH portal) to detect early violations in deforestation and pollution.
• Non-Delegation: While welcoming AI for research and data-mapping, the Court maintains that the "authority to reason" and attribute liability remains inherently human and judicial. 

Way ahead

In 2026, the "Way Ahead" for India's environmental governance focuses on stabilizing the judicial role while strengthening institutional and technological frameworks to manage the newly recognized constitutional rights.

Strategic Institutional Reforms
The current judicial trend of "governance by decree" is expected to transition into a more structured, regulator-disciplining approach. 

• Strengthening Regulators: Key recommendations include filling long-standing vacancies in State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to decentralize environmental justice and reduce the Supreme Court's load.
• Technological Integration: Mandating real-time digital monitoring through systems like Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) and satellite surveillance to track compliance without constant judicial intervention.
• Codifying the EIA Process: Finalizing a transparent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework that mandates early community engagement and strictly limits retrospective clearances to "rare, exceptional cases".
• Corporate Accountability: As climate risk is now a legal risk, corporations are urged to integrate climate risk assessments into core operations rather than treating them as CSR, specifically in long-life infrastructure like ports and power plants. 

Emerging Legal Frontiers (2026 Trends)

• Adaptation Litigation: A shift is expected toward "adaptation litigation," where communities impacted by heatwaves or floods seek to compel the government to fund and implement the National Adaptation Plan.
• Carbon Market Compliance: With the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) expected to launch its market phase in 2026–27, legal focus will shift toward monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. 

Conclusion: Balancing the "Green Mandate"

The Supreme Court has decisively moved environment and climate rights from the periphery to the core of the Article 21 (Right to Life) guarantee. However, the 2025 reversals in cases like Vanashakti (on retrospective clearances) and the Aravalli definition show that absolute ecological doctrines are being tempered by the Principle of Proportionality to avoid "devastating" economic losses. 
The ultimate goal for 2026 is for the Court to remain a "crucial guardian" while returning the daily task of environmental management to empowered, expert-led statutory bodies. 

Download Pdf