Supreme Court Review 2025: Lacking a principled stance on environmental rights

This year, the Court had to grapple with several environmental law and animal rights cases. It avoided settling matters on principles, opting instead for a discretionary approach. The consequence was that, in some high-stakes matters, the overarching environmental protection granted to people, nature and wildlife perhaps took a backseat to corporate interests. 

More generally, and as every year, the judgements were a mixed bag. The Court extended environmental protections to man-made water bodies, laid down guidelines to prevent illegal sandmining and enhanced protection for certain sanctuaries and forest lands. In contrast, it also reversed settled protection against ex-post facto clearances and failed to take strict action to ameliorate the smog crisis in the National Capital Region. 

By overruling its own decision striking down post-facto environmental clearances for infrastructure projects, and by redefining the Aravalli Hills in a way to open up swathes of it for mining, the Court attracted questions around its commitment to environmental protection (the Aravalli verdict was stayed by a Vacation Bench on 29 December). Further, the Court’s flip-flop in the stray dog matter suggested that it may not have a clear-eyed approach towards dealing with situations where animal welfare is at odds with public safety in urban areas. 

Gachibowli, Futal Lake, Aravallis 

In April, the Court took suo moto cognisance of large-scale felling of trees in Hyderabad’s Kancha Gachibowli forest area. Sizable portions of forest lands were cleared for inaugurating an IT hub. The Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih stayed the further felling of trees, noting that the forest is home to various species of scheduled animals. In August, the Division Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K.V. Chandran reiterated that the Court is not opposed to development but favours sustainability over unplanned expansion.  

In October, a Bench led by CJI Gavai and also consisting of Justices Chandran and N.V. Anjaria extended the doctrine of public trust to man-made artificial bodies. However, it dismissed challenges seeking a stay on construction activities around Futal Lake. in Nagpur City, holding that artificial waterbodies—not directly protected under statutory principles—are protected under the precautionary principle.

In November, a three-judge Bench led by CJI Gavai took up the question of defining what constitutes the Aravalli Hills. The Court noted that the issue for consideration was whether certain mining activities fell within the Aravallis or beyond it. The Court underscored that the definition of Aravallis excludes all ranges below 100 meters, potentially opening up large tracts for mining projects and triggering criticism from environmentalists. In a subsequent hearing on 29 December, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant stayed the contentious judgement, and formed an expert panel to examine the questions of height and permissible mining in the Aravallis. The action raised questions of procedure, with observers wondering how a coordinate bench could stay an Order in separate suo moto proceedings. 

Jharkhand’s Saranda; Maharashtra’s ‘zudpi’ lands

In October, the Division Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran ordered the Jharkhand government to declare Saranda forest a wildlife sanctuary, in an attempt to preserve biodiversity and protect the forest from illicit mining. However, the Court settled for a middle ground when it came to mining, allowing operations under current leases to continue.

Similarly, in May, the Division Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Masih upheld the Supreme Court order of 12 December 1996, declaring ‘zudpi’ scrublands as ‘Forest Land’, thereby bringing them under the protection of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Zudpi lands are a vast area of fragmented scrublands, spanning six districts of Maharashtra.

The Court said that thousands of hectares of zudpi lands allotted for residential houses, agriculture, government offices and public utilities prior to December 1996 would not be disturbed, but any land used for commercial purposes after 25 October 1980 would be treated as encroachment. 

The reversal in ‘Vanakshakti’

In May, a two-judge Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan declared post-facto environmental clearances “illegal” in Vanashakti v Union of India. In July, the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) filed a review seeking reconsideration of Vanashakti. Though the maintainability of the review petition was questioned, CJI Gavai issued notice and permitted an open court hearing of the matter. 

A three-judge bench comprising CJI Gavai and Justices Chandran and Bhuyan, in a 2:1 split, reversed the decision, holding that ex post facto clearances are neither “illegal” nor contrary to environmental jurisprudence. The majority decision further noted that declaring ex post facto clearances “illegal” would be counter-productive to “public interest” as it would lead to demolition of all projects which do not have prior environmental clearances. 

In his dissent, Justice Bhuyan stated that the reversal was a “step in retrogression” and “overlooks the very fundamentals of environmental jurisprudence.” Justice Bhuyan further noted that while the “precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence, polluter pays is only a principle of reparation.”

Water in Jodhpur; air in NCR

In September, the Court took cognisance of the declining state of the Jojari river flowing through Jodhpur district. The Court noted that there are “two million lives at risk” owing to the unchecked release of effluents in the river. Ordering the enforcement of the February 2022 order of the National Green Tribunal, the Court enforced directions to monitor, regulate and compensate for the damages caused. The Court further directed the constitution of a High Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee to monitor progress. 

As the National Capital Region (NCR) reeled from hazardous levels of pollution in October, the Supreme Court questioned the NCR states on their “long-term” plans to counter the issue. The Court dictated compliance with directions of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in stubble burning and asked the Union to submit its pollution control plan. The Court heard the matter periodically over November and December and pronounced extensive directions to tackle vehicular emissions and local pollution-related grievances. It expressed concern over the listing of the matter in October every year, as the annual haze descends on the NCR. 

Leash on stray dogs 

In July, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan took cognisance of the “stray dog menace” in Delhi, following reports of the animals attacking young children and other members of the public. On 11 August, the Bench issued orders to round up stray dogs and relocate them to designated dog shelters. After a public outcry over the order and multiple applications highlighting the lack of infrastructure to implement the Order, the matter was relisted before a larger bench of three-judges (Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Anjaria). 

The subsequent Order by the three-judge Bench on 22 August modified the initial Order, with the Bench noting that the earlier approach was “too harsh” and “unworkable.” The revised Order allowed the release of stray dogs back into the same locality after sterilisation, with the exception of dogs infected or suspected to be infected with rabies and those displaying aggressive behavior. 

Bustards and power lines 

This year, the Court continued hearing M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India, a petition that was filed to seek protection for the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), particularly in the face of energy grid projects that run through the endangered bird’s habitat. In 2024, a three-judge Bench led by former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had issued directions—with a ten-year timeline—for conservation. 

On 19 December, a verdict pronounced by Justices Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar doubled down on conservation measures including in-situ operations, construction of predator-proof enclosures and restoration of degraded grasslands and water points. While underlining the fundamental link between social welfare and environmental health, the Bench issued directions to track GIB movement and conduct capacity-building and awareness programmes.