2026 Supreme Court mid-year review: Environmental and animal rights

The first-half of the year saw the Supreme Court take definitive positions on a broad-sweep of environmental issues. Notably, the Court initiated restructuring of two long-pending litigations in the M.C. Mehta and T.N. Godavarman cases. The Court also drew curtains on the stray dogs matter, signalling a conscious push towards docket rationalisation. 

Beyond these, the Court addressed consequential issues including the determination of compensation by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), clarification on the status of deemed forests, ex post facto environmental clearances and translocation of animals. 

We took a closer look at some of these key verdicts. 

Environmental compensation quantified

On 30 January, in Rhythm County v Satish Sanjay Hegde, the Court held that the NGT has broad discretion to determine environmental compensation under Sections 15 and 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It reiterated that adequate environmental compensation must be proportionate to the scale of the project. 

The question before the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi was whether, in the absence of a legislative framework, the NGT can order an enhanced compensation based on the project cost and annual turnover. The Court affirmed the expansive powers of the NGT to determine compensation payable based on the nature of the project, objective of environmental restitution and the polluter pays principle. 

Varying shades of environmental protection

On 13 February, Harbinder Singh Sekhon v The State Of Punjab, the Court quashed a notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) which re-classified stand-alone cement grinding units (as opposed to those attached to captive power plants) from “Red” to “Orange” category. It noted that such units emit hazardous fugitive dust, harmful to public health. 

As per Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) directions, Red category sectors are not permitted to operate in ecologically sensitive, protected areas. The cement-grinding unit in question was located near  an educational institution. 

The Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the re-classification of the cement grinding sector, divorced from local realities, infringes constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. 

PIL in Taj Trapezium disposed 

On 11 March, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions in M.C. Mehta v Union of India, which were instituted more than four-decades ago. The Court noted that the disposals were aimed at better and more effective supervision. 

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi issued directions to the Registry to institute four new suo moto petitions concerning vision documents, protection of trees, regulation of industries and management of water bodies and sewage in the Taj Trapezium Zone. 

Further, the Bench directed the Registry to identify infructuous Interlocutory Applications (IAs) to dispose of them while listing all other IAs as Miscellaneous Applications before the Registrar’s Court. 

Defining “deemed forest” 

On 20 March, in Naveen Solanki v Rail Land Development Authority, the Court held that land cannot be recognized as a “deemed forest” if it was not designated as such at the time of the relevant Master Plan. The Division Bench of Justices A.G. Masih and Datta held that subsequent emergence of vegetation would not alter the land’s legal status. 

It further distinguished between a natural forest ecosystem and artificially introduced vegetation, holding that the later not only falls outside the definition of natural forest, but actively displaces forest cover and indigenous plant communities. 

T.N. Godavarman comes to close

On 13 April, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi restructured forest conservation litigation In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, instituted in 1995. Noting that the petition has outlived its original purpose, the Bench directed the petition to be streamlined to address modern issues. 

It directed the amicus to prepare a questionnaire, which every Advocate-on-Record (AOR) must fill to declare whether an interlocutory application (IA) has been rendered infructuous. Further,  new IAs are to be filed and listed before a three-judge Bench for a fresh consideration. 

Stay on translocation of deers in Delhi 

On 27 April, in New Delhi Nature Society v Director Horticulture, the Court stayed the further translocation of deers from a Deer Park in New Delhi. Taking note of gross negligence and mismanagement on part of the Delhi Development Authority during translocation, it found that the exercise had caused a decline in the survival rate of the deers. 

The Division Bench of Justices Nath and Mehta observed that the translocation of 261 deer was done in violation of the protocol and ordered the Central Empowered Committee to conduct an on ground survey on the ecological capacity, present and surplus population, and availability of infrastructure and veterinary care at the deer parks. The CEC was further instructed to generate a comprehensive roadmap of translocation in conformity with scientific methodologies and procedural safeguards. 

Final verdict on stray dogs 

On 19 May, In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay the Price, a Bench of Justice Nath, Mehta and N.V. Anjaria held that the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 do not confer unqualified rights upon stray dogs to inhabit particular premises. However, the State has an obligation to scientifically manage stray dogs through sterilisation, vaccination and sheltering. 

The Bench held that assertion of rights in favour of animals cannot override or compromise the safety of the public under Article 21. Further, it directed that stray dogs found in institutional or sensitive areas cannot be re-released into the same premises after sterilisation and vaccination. However, the Court allowed student bodies and animal welfare groups to maintain stray dogs within institutional campuses, provided they file an affidavit, accepting tortious liability in the case of dog bites. Rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous dogs may be euthanised to curb a threat to human life.