The Supreme Court's increasing tendency to issue forward-looking regulatory directions in environmental matters, rather than reviewing legality of administrative decisions, raises concerns about judicial overreach and regulatory instability." Critically analyze this statement with reference to recent environmental jurisprudence in India.

Introduction

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of India has increasingly moved from reviewing the legality of administrative decisions to issuing forward-looking directions mimicking regulation in important environmental cases. This shift has emerged in a series of matters in which regulators have dropped the ball, pulling the Court into a managerial role. However, the Court has then compounded the problem by continuing to substitute for the regulator instead of correcting the regulator's process and stepping back. This tendency to remain involved, especially within a single continuing mandamus across domains, has consequences for regulated actors, the state, and the people, and needs to be carefully examined.

Pattern of Judicial Regulation and Subsequent Modifications

In June 2022, the Court laid down that protected areas across India should have an eco-sensitive zone of at least one kilometre from their boundaries.

However, in April 2023, the Court modified the direction saying the rule would not apply where the Environment Ministry had already issued ESZ notifications, partly because States argued the blanket rule was hard to implement.

In December 2015, the Court banned registration of private diesel cars and SUVs with engine capacity of 2,000 cc or more in Delhi-NCR.

By August 2016, it lifted the embargo and replaced it with a compensation charge of 1%-2% on ex-showroom price.

In 2025, the Court called for no-coercive action against owners of diesel or petrol vehicles more than 10 or 15 years old, then narrowed the rule to vehicles below Bharat Stage-IV standard only.

The firecracker matter followed the same trajectory with near-total bans in NCR due to air pollution, only to relax around specific festivals citing enforcement constraints and public order realities.

Shifting Justifications and Expertise Concerns

The Court's justification has often shifted from being rooted in legality to that in consequences, creating doctrinal uncertainty.

In May 2025, in Vanashakti vs Union of India, the Court said ex post facto environmental clearances run against core environmental principles.

In November, it recalled that position in a review, with majority judgment expressing concerns about disrupting ongoing commercial activity.

In the Aravalli matter, the Court's November order adopted a unified definition for "Aravalli hills and ranges" based on a committee's findings.

Within weeks, it placed that order in abeyance and moved to constitute a new committee after concerns about unintended legal effects.

The Court has used expert inputs to compensate for its limits but has also contested expertise, creating a push-pull relationship that sets stage for U-turns.

Consequences for Public Challenge and Regulatory Stability

As environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta argued, project proponents and governments have been forced to approach the Court for permissions even before statutory authorities have finished examining projects.

This confers a sense of finality that discourages contestation later and smothers meaningful judicial review in other fora.

Many disputes sit inside continuing mandamus structures with serial interim directions, committee reports, affidavits, and modifications.

It has been easy for the Court to correct course but often at the expense of stability and predictability.

Fragmented enforcement, delayed notifications, poor monitoring, and ad hoc exemptions left gaps that invited judicial intervention.

However, regulated actors need strict rather than negotiable rules, and governments should not contend with parallel decision-making.

Conclusion

The Court should consider adopting a steadier hand, protecting the environment by disciplining the state back into regulation. It can do this by specifying thresholds for when it will issue managerial directions and insisting on time-bound regulatory action with reasons and public data, while retaining its prerogative to review legality and procedures. By avoiding sweeping rules that immediately invite exceptions and explaining in advance what kinds of evidence would justify modification, the Court can ensure that people know where and how to contest activities that render environmental harm while maintaining institutional balance.