What Happened
- At the Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2026 organised by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in Nimli village, Alwar district, Rajasthan, former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta criticised the Indian judiciary's shifting stance on environmental protection.
- Justice Gupta said courts have moved from a "pro-active" role to one that prioritises administrative procedure and formality over actual ecological consequences, calling the trend "deeply concerning."
- He criticised expert reports placed before courts as not always reliable and warned that few judges are equipped to look beyond them critically.
- Referring to the Great Nicobar project and the Vantara wildlife case, he said court orders appeared "stage-managed" and questioned how the Supreme Court could have accepted them.
- On compensatory afforestation, he stated: "What cannot be compensated is not sustainable" — arguing that trees planted in a different state cannot replace the ecological functions of trees felled elsewhere.
- The event also marked the release of the 2026 State of India's Environment report by CSE and Down To Earth.
Static Topic Bridges
Environmental Jurisprudence in India: From Activism to Restraint
India's higher judiciary played a pioneering role in developing environmental law from the 1980s onward. The Supreme Court invoked the public trust doctrine, the precautionary principle, and the polluter-pays principle to protect common environmental resources. Landmark cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (on the Ganga's pollution, 1987), the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996, precautionary principle), and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (1996–ongoing, forest protection) defined an era of judicial environmental activism. Justice Gupta's remarks suggest this tradition is weakening, with courts increasingly deferring to executive decisions backed by procedurally correct expert reports rather than independently assessing ecological outcomes.
- Public Trust Doctrine: Natural resources like forests, rivers, and coastal zones held in trust by the state for public use — any diversion requires judicial scrutiny (M.C. Mehta cases)
- Precautionary Principle: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing protective measures (adopted in Indian law in Vellore Citizens case, 1996)
- Polluter-Pays Principle: Those responsible for environmental damage must bear the cost of remediation (codified in various SC orders)
- National Green Tribunal (NGT): Established in 2010 under the NGT Act to provide dedicated judicial forum for environmental cases; has original jurisdiction over environmental disputes
Connection to this news: Justice Gupta's critique is directed at the gap between the formal invocation of these principles (which courts still cite) and their substantive application — arguing that procedural compliance has become a substitute for genuine environmental scrutiny.
National Green Tribunal: Role, Powers, and Limitations
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established in 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, is a specialised adjudicatory body for environmental disputes. It has original jurisdiction over cases involving substantial environmental questions and can adjudicate on the enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment. Unlike civil courts, NGT is expected to have technically qualified members alongside judicial members to enable deeper assessment of environmental evidence. However, critics — including Justice Gupta — argue that even specialised bodies are increasingly relying on government-appointed expert committees whose independence is questionable.
- NGT established: October 18, 2010; headquartered in New Delhi with four regional benches (Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata, Chennai)
- Composition: Chairperson (former SC/HC judge) + Judicial Members + Expert Members (environmental scientists)
- Powers: Provide relief and compensation for environmental damage; order restoration; impose penalties; stay projects
- Landmark NGT orders: banned plastic bags in several states, intervened in Yamuna pollution cases, checked illegal mining
- Limitation: NGT cannot review constitutional validity of legislation; some matters remain with High Courts/Supreme Court
- The "Vantara" case (elephant captivity allegations): NGT and Supreme Court proceedings questioned by Justice Gupta at AAD 2026
Connection to this news: Justice Gupta's concern is that both the NGT and the Supreme Court have become insufficiently critical of expert reports submitted by project proponents, effectively rubber-stamping environmental clearances that should face stricter scrutiny.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Expert Committees
The Environmental Impact Assessment process — governed by the EIA Notification, 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — requires mandatory expert appraisal before large projects receive environmental clearance. Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs), constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), review project applications and make recommendations. These committees are the "expert reports" that courts rely on when reviewing challenged environmental clearances. Critics have long argued that EACs lack independence because members are appointed by the same ministry they are advising, proponents fund the preparation of EIA documents, and courts defer to EAC recommendations without independent scrutiny.
- EIA Notification, 2006: requires environmental clearance for 39 categories of projects in Schedule I (airports, highways, mining, thermal power, coastal developments, etc.)
- EIA documents prepared by: consultants hired by the project proponent — a structural conflict of interest
- Public hearing: mandatory for most Category A and B1 projects; allows affected communities to raise objections
- EIA Amendment 2020 (draft, later withdrawn): proposed post-facto regularisation of violations and reduced public consultation periods — drew massive public opposition
- Great Nicobar Project: 72,000 acres of tropical rainforest in Andaman and Nicobar; clearance process questioned for inadequate assessment of ecological impact on coral reefs and indigenous communities
Connection to this news: Justice Gupta's critique that expert reports are not reliably independent goes to the structural heart of the EIA process. His observation that courts accept these reports uncritically — as seen in Great Nicobar and Vantara case orders — identifies a systemic weakness in India's environmental governance architecture.
Key Facts & Data
- Event: Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2026, organised by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)
- Venue: Anil Agarwal Environment Training Institute (AAETI), Nimli village, Alwar, Rajasthan
- Speaker: Justice Deepak Gupta, former Judge, Supreme Court of India
- Key quote: "If damage cannot be reversed or compensated, it cannot qualify as sustainable development"
- Report released: State of India's Environment 2026 (CSE / Down To Earth)
- Cases cited: Great Nicobar Island project clearance; Vantara wildlife captivity case
- National Green Tribunal established: October 18, 2010 under NGT Act, 2010
- EIA Notification: 2006 (under Environment Protection Act, 1986)
- Precautionary principle adopted in Indian environmental law: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
- Polluter-pays principle: first articulated in Indian courts in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)