From Aravallis to Mangroves: The Weakening of India’s Environmental Laws and the Constitutional Cost of Development
- Prateek
- 1 day ago
- 8 min read
From the Aravalli mountain system to the mangrove ecosystems along India’s coasts, the country finds itself at the same moral crossroads that Amitav Ghosh evokes in The Hungry Tide — where nature remembers what law chooses to forget, and where ecological consequences return with relentless force.
If environmental justice continues to be diluted in the name of development, the Constitution of India risks becoming a silent witness to ecological destruction. This silence is not neutral. Like rising tides, landslides, floods, groundwater depletion, and coastal erosion, the consequences will return — not metaphorically, but materially.
What is unfolding today is not a collection of isolated policy or judicial decisions, but a systematic weakening of India’s environmental laws, cutting across mining regulation, environmental clearances, constitutional interpretation, and judicial philosophy.
Weakening of India’s Environmental Laws Through Policy: The EIA Shift of December 18, 2025
A decisive policy rupture occurred on December 18, 2025, when the Union government altered the regulatory framework governing Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for non-coal mining projects.
Specific Policy Changes
Land acquisition is now permitted before an Environmental Impact Assessment
EIAs may be conducted without specifying the exact location or area
Environmental scrutiny is no longer a pre-condition for project initiation
This reverses the foundational logic of environmental governance. The EIA mechanism was designed as a preventive safeguard, meant to assess damage before irreversible ecological harm occurs. Under the new framework, it increasingly functions as a post-facto compliance instrument, legitimising decisions already taken.
This policy shift directly undermines decades of judicial insistence that environmental law must operate as a deterrent, not a procedural afterthought.
Judicial Dilution: Recall of Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025)
The dilution of environmental protection has not been limited to executive action. The judiciary itself has contributed to the erosion.
In Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court had delivered a landmark judgment banning retrospective environmental clearances, reaffirming that environmental illegality cannot be cured after damage has occurred.
However, within five months, a Bench led by the then Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai recalled this progressive judgment.
Consequences of the Recall
Retrospective environmental clearances regained legitimacy
The deterrent function of environmental law was weakened
Judicial commitment to precautionary environmental governance was diluted
This recall marked a retreat from pro-environment jurisprudence and signalled a broader judicial accommodation of development-first governance — a critical element in the weakening of India’s environmental laws.
From Mountains to Mangroves: Environmental Protection Under Judicial and Regulatory Stress
Although Chief Justice Surya Kant later suo motu stayed a controversial order, preserving the institutional credibility of the Court in that instance, the broader pattern remains deeply troubling.
The debate over the Aravalli ranges is emblematic of this shift. It is not merely about definitions or cartography, but about a paradigm change in how development, ecology, and constitutional obligation are understood.
Aravalli Hills: Ecological Backbone of North-West India
The Aravalli mountain system performs irreplaceable ecological functions:
Prevents desertification
Facilitates groundwater recharge
Regulates micro-climates
Maintains soil stability in semi-arid regions
Sustains biodiversity
The Supreme Court itself acknowledged this role in M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2004), imposing a ban on mining in the Aravalli region.
Subsequent orders culminating in 2010 explicitly recognised that unregulated mining had caused irreparable environmental damage. Crucially, during these proceedings, the Court rejected attempts to define the Aravallis purely by elevation, including the proposal that only landforms above 100 metres constituted the Aravalli range.
Why the 100-Metre Criterion Was Rejected in 2010
Low-altitude hills and ridges are vital for hydrology and groundwater recharge
The Aravallis function as a continuous geomorphological system
A height-based definition would exclude vast ecologically critical tracts
The Court consciously discarded the 100-metre norm on ecological grounds, recognising that environmental systems cannot be reduced to arbitrary numerical thresholds.
Judicial Reversal in 2025: In Re Aravalli Definition Case
Despite this settled position, the Supreme Court in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges (2025) accepted a 100-metre height-based definition.
Implications of the 2025 Definition
Large portions of the Aravalli system lost statutory and judicial protection
Hydrology, biodiversity, and ecological interdependence were ignored
Environmental protection became selective and exclusionary
This constitutes:
A violation of Article 21, which includes the right to a clean and healthy environment
A hollowing out of Article 48A, the State’s duty to protect and improve the environment
An arbitrary classification violating Article 14, as height bears no rational nexus to ecological function
Ironically, constitutional enforcement has shown greater enthusiasm for Article 48 (cow protection) and Article 44 (uniform civil code) than for environmental directives.
You might like this | Initiatives for Protection of Aravalli
Precautionary Principle Undermined
The Court’s earlier reliance on the precautionary principle was firmly articulated in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996), where it rejected artificial limits on environmental protection.
The acceptance of a rigid height-based definition in 2025 directly contradicts this principle, reinforcing how the weakening of India’s environmental laws is occurring through judicial reinterpretation rather than legislative repeal.
Mangroves and Coastal Ecology: Judicially Sanctioned Destruction
The erosion of environmental protection is equally visible in India’s coastal regions.
Mangroves:
Act as natural flood control systems
Serve as carbon sinks
Protect against storm surges and tidal flooding
Support complex biodiversity networks
Yet judicial approvals have permitted:
Destruction of 158 mangroves for Adani Cementation Limited (2025) in Raigarh, Maharashtra
The felling and transplantation of approximately 34,000 mangrove trees for infrastructure projects
Allowing such destruction on the assurance of compensatory afforestation disregards ecological science. Mangrove ecosystems take decades to mature and cannot be recreated elsewhere through plantation drives.
Char Dham Highway Project and Himalayan Fragility
The Char Dham highway project in Uttarakhand further illustrates this pattern.
A June 2025 study identified 811 landslide-prone zones along the project corridor. The Himalayan ecosystem is among the most fragile in the world, and large-scale road widening:
Triggers landslides
Disturbs river systems
Amplifies disaster vulnerability
In Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021), the Court acknowledged the region’s ecological sensitivity but still permitted wider roads citing strategic defence needs.
Subsequent flash floods and ecological disturbances in Uttarakhand raise serious questions about this so-called balancing act.
Corporate Influence, Procedural Fairness, and Article 14
Environmental clearances for large-scale mining, highways, and urban redevelopment — particularly projects backed by significant capital — increasingly pass regulatory barriers with ease.
Common features include:
Truncated public hearings
Objections dismissed as obstructionist
Environmental compliance reduced to a checklist
This undermines procedural fairness, transparency, and Article 14’s equality guarantee. When economically powerful actors receive disproportionate advantages, environmental governance loses public trust.
Notably, even as the Economic Survey presented in January 2026 sharply criticised the private sector, judicial and regulatory practice continues to favour large corporate projects.
Erosion of the Public Trust Doctrine
In M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996), the Supreme Court established the Public Trust Doctrine, holding that natural resources belong to the State in trust for the people and cannot be transferred for private exploitation.
Judicial approvals that facilitate ecological degradation directly contradict this foundational jurisprudence and the Court’s own legacy as a guardian of environmental rights.
Constitutional Duties at Risk
The cumulative effect of:
Diluted EIAs
Retrospective clearances
Reductionist definitions
Judicial leniency
has placed core constitutional commitments under strain.
Threatened provisions include:
Article 21 — right to life and environmental health
Article 48A — State duty to protect the environment
Article 51A(g) — citizens’ duty to safeguard nature
Ease of doing business must not become ease of environmental destruction.
Reclaiming Environmental Justice Before the Tide Returns
India’s environmental crisis is not merely ecological — it is constitutional.
From the Aravallis to mangroves, from EIAs to Himalayan highways, the pattern reveals:
Retreat from precaution
Judicial accommodation
Corporate privilege
Ecological exclusion
The Green Bench of the Supreme Court must sit regularly, and similar benches must be institutionalised in all High Courts.
If the Constitution is to remain a living document, it cannot merely observe as the tide rises — because history, like nature, always remembers.
FAQs
Q. What does “weakening of India’s environmental laws” mean?
Ans. The weakening of India’s environmental laws refers to recent policy changes, judicial recalls, and legal interpretations that have reduced the strength of environmental protections. This includes dilution of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, acceptance of reductionist definitions for ecologically sensitive areas like the Aravalli hills, and judicial approvals for environmentally damaging projects based on mitigation or compensatory measures.
Q. Why is the recall of Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025) significant?
Ans. The recall of Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025) is significant because the original judgment had banned retrospective environmental clearances. Its recall within five months weakened the deterrent effect of environmental law and allowed environmental violations to be legitimised after damage had already occurred.
Q. Why are the Aravalli hills important for environmental protection?
Ans. The Aravalli hills are ecologically crucial for preventing desertification, recharging groundwater, regulating micro-climates, maintaining soil stability in semi-arid regions, and supporting biodiversity in north-west India. The Supreme Court itself recognised their importance in earlier judgments, including M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2004).
Q. What is the controversy over the 100-metre definition of the Aravallis?
Ans. In 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a definition that protects only landforms above 100 metres as part of the Aravalli hills. This excludes large ecologically vital areas from protection, ignoring hydrology, biodiversity, and ecological interdependence, and departs from the Court’s own 2010 position.
Q. How does the Aravalli definition issue affect Article 21 of the Constitution?
Ans. Article 21 has been interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. By removing protection from large parts of the Aravalli ecosystem through a height-based definition, the judgment directly affects this constitutional right.
Q. What happened in the mangrove destruction case in Maharashtra?
Ans. In 2025, judicial approvals allowed the destruction of 158 mangroves for Adani Cementation Limited in Raigarh, Maharashtra, along with large-scale mangrove felling and transplantation for infrastructure projects, relying on compensatory afforestation assurances.
Q. Why is the Char Dham highway project environmentally controversial?
Ans. A June 2025 study identified 811 landslide-prone zones along the Char Dham highway corridor. The Himalayan ecosystem is extremely fragile, and large-scale road widening has increased risks of landslides, river disturbance, and ecological instability.
Q. What did the Supreme Court say in Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021)?
Ans. In Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court recognised the ecological sensitivity of the Himalayan region but allowed wider roads for the Char Dham project on the grounds of strategic defence needs.
Q. How does Article 14 relate to environmental protection?
Ans. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness. Selective environmental protection—such as safeguarding only high-elevation landforms while exposing surrounding ecosystems—creates arbitrary classifications that lack a rational ecological basis.
Q. What is the Public Trust Doctrine in Indian environmental law?
Ans. The Public Trust Doctrine, affirmed in M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996), holds that natural resources are owned by the State in trust for the people and cannot be transferred for private exploitation at the cost of environmental degradation.
Q. What constitutional provisions are affected by environmental dilution?
Ans.Key constitutional provisions affected include Article 21 (right to life and a healthy environment), Article 48A (State’s duty to protect the environment), and Article 51A(g) (citizens’ duty to safeguard nature).
Q. Why is environmental justice described as a constitutional issue?
Ans. Environmental degradation affects fundamental rights, equality before law, and constitutional duties. When laws and judicial interpretations enable ecological harm, the issue transcends policy and becomes a constitutional crisis.
Comments