Former SC Judge Warns Courts Retreating on Environmental Protection

Former Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta has said Indian courts are no longer as proactive in protecting the environment as they once were, with procedural compliance increasingly used to justify projects that cause environmental damage. Speaking at the Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2026 in Rajasthan, Gupta criticised recent Supreme Court handling of the Great Nicobar project and Vanatara cases as appearing stage-managed.

Justice Gupta argued that courts have an obligation to intervene when a project results in environmental disaster, even if procedure has been followed. He described compensatory afforestation as having become a joke, and said expert reports placed before courts are not always reliable while few judges possess the depth to look beyond them. He questioned how courts could accept arguments prioritising linear development over ecology, and noted that construction is now permitted in Himalayan border areas up to 100 kilometres from the frontier without environmental clearance, covering roughly 70 per cent of the region in security-related exemptions.

Gupta cited the evolution of Indian environmental jurisprudence from the 1986 Doctrine of Absolute Liability in the oleum gas leak case to the precautionary principle recognised in the Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case and forest protections under the TN Godavarman matter. He argued that this history has been undermined by recent judicial reticence. On the Great Indian Bustard debate in Rajasthan — where approximately 100 birds survive — he said the question of underground versus overhead power lines was not merely technical but commercial, and required more courageous judicial scrutiny.

Gupta called for courts with judges who are sensitive to environmental concerns, and expressed reservations about the National Green Tribunal's performance while stopping short of calling it a flawed idea. He stressed that sustainable development cannot include irreversible damage — that if harm cannot be compensated, it cannot qualify as sustainable. He warned against overreliance on government submissions while disregarding petitioner evidence, and said large investments do not automatically justify project approvals. He concluded by stating that banning everything is not the solution, but neither is permitting damage that cannot be undone.

Key figure — Approximately 100 Great Indian Bustards remaining in Rajasthan