Primary Digital Access. The original editorial by Vasudevan Mukunth, published in The Hindu, can be accessed at: https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_international/issues/165318/OPS/G8GFCIPO6.1+G0FFDQ1QD.1.html
Defining Green Governance. The article explores the Supreme Court of India’s evolution from a legal reviewer to a proactive environmental regulator that often issues forward-looking directives.
The Managerial Shift. Judicial intervention has moved toward a managerial role, stepping in where administrative regulators have failed, but creating a new set of institutional challenges in the process.

Source

Serial Oversight Mechanisms. The Court increasingly utilizes “continuing mandamus,” a process where it issues serial interim directions, reviews committee reports, and maintains ongoing oversight of environmental matters.
Flexibility vs. Finality. While this allows the Court to correct course easily, it often does so at the expense of policy stability and long-term legal predictability for stakeholders.
Substituting the Regulator. By remaining involved across multiple domains, the Court has effectively substituted for specialized regulatory bodies rather than simply correcting their procedural errors.

The Blanket Mandate. In June 2022, the Court mandated a 1-km buffer zone for all protected areas across India to ensure ecological safety.
The Pragmatic Reversal. By April 2023, the Court modified this direction, stating it would not apply where the Environment Ministry had already issued specific notifications.
Implementation Hardships. The initial rule was found difficult to implement due to resistance from States and varying ecological realities, leading to a significant judicial “U-turn.”

Capacity-Based Bans. In 2015, the Court banned private diesel cars with engines over 2,000 cc in the Delhi-NCR region to curb air pollution.
Monetary Substitutions. By August 2016, the ban was replaced with a charge, requiring owners to pay 1%–2% of the showroom price as a compensation fee.
Standard-Based Refinement. In 2025, the Court shifted from age-based bans to focusing on emission technology, restricting action only against vehicles below the Bharat Stage-IV (BS-IV) standard.

Near-Total Bans. The Court initially imposed strict bans on firecrackers in the NCR region during high-pollution periods like Diwali.
Relaxation for Categories. The rules were later relaxed to allow “green crackers,” reflecting a shift toward technologically mediated solutions rather than absolute prohibitions.
Enforcement Constraints. These modifications often occurred after the Court realized the massive public order and enforcement challenges associated with total bans.

Adopting Unified Definitions. In the Aravalli mining matter (November 2025), the Court adopted a specific definition for “hills and ranges” based on a committee’s findings.
Immediate Abeyance. Within weeks, the order was put on hold after stakeholders argued the definition would have unintended and drastic legal effects.
Push-Pull Relationship. The Court frequently relies on expert committees to compensate for its limits, yet it often contests or overrules that same expertise when faced with practical resistance.

Smothering Judicial Review. Project proponents are often forced to approach the Court for permissions early in the process, which confers a “sense of finality” that prevents future challenges.
Barriers to Contestation. Meaningful judicial review in lower fora (like the NGT) is smothered when the Supreme Court has already provided early-stage approval.
Reshaping Legal Participation. When the Court modifies old rules, it effectively changes who gets to be heard and what evidence is considered valid for environmental protection.

Core Principles vs. Pragmatism. In the Vanashakti vs. Union of India case (May 2025), the Court initially ruled that “ex post facto” clearances (approvals after the fact) were illegal.
Recalling Decisions. By November 2025, the majority judgment recalled this position, citing concerns over the disruption of ongoing commercial and infrastructure activities.
Managing the Fallout. This shift demonstrates the Court’s impulse to manage economic fallout, moving away from strict doctrinal adherence toward a “consequence-based” governance model.

Parallel Decision-Making. Governments currently contend with two parallel authorities, as the Court often acts as a secondary approving body for major projects.
Negotiable Rules. Regulated industries are left dealing with negotiable rules rather than strict, predictable statutes, leading to investment uncertainty.
Erosion of Statutory Duties. Judicial intervention often responds to regulatory gaps by stepping into the regulator’s shoes instead of forcing the regulator to fulfill its legal duties.

Disciplining the State. The Court should pivot toward forcing the state to regulate effectively through time-bound actions and the release of public data.
Reducing Uncertainty. Judges are encouraged to avoid sweeping rules that immediately invite exceptions and to explain modification criteria in advance.
Restoring Predictability. By focusing on procedural legality rather than technical management, the Court can provide a more stable environment for both ecology and economy.

Supreme Court & Green Governance Quiz

Instructions

Total Questions: 15

Time: 15 Minutes

Each question has 5 options. Multiple answers may be correct.

Time Left: 15:00