The Supreme Court’s 2025 directives on air pollution exemplify judicial activism, enforcing accountability of CPCB, SPCBs, and CAQM, filling executive gaps, and protecting the right to clean air under Article 21, However, long-term solutions require strengthened enforcement, technology, and public engagement.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU
The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) , Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards to come out with measures to prevent air pollution within three weeks, is a clear instance of judicial activism, compelling executive agencies to fulfill their duties to protect the fundamental right to clean air.
Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive interpretation of the Constitution to protect rights, address injustices, and fill governance gaps when the legislature or executive fails to act.
It involves expansive use of judicial review, Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and Article 142 (for "complete justice") to enforce contemporary values like environmental protection.
Key Articles: Article 32 (Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction for Fundamental Rights enforcement) and Article 226 (High Courts' powers) form the bedrock, allowing PILs to bypass traditional locus standi.
Article 21 has been expansively read to include environmental protections, as in Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar (1991), where clean air was deemed a Fundamental Right.
Doctrines
Legal Backing: Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, provide statutory teeth, with courts using Article 142 for directives like Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) enforcement.
The Supreme Court highlighted that State and Central Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs/CPCBs) have underperformed, reduced to advisory roles due to resource constraints and poor enforcement.
Staff Shortages: More than 50% of the sanctioned posts in all state pollution control boards and committees are lying vacant (Source: Economics Times). A Centre for Policy Research report highlighted dominance by non-experts, limiting technical interventions.
Fund Underutilization: A parliamentary panel revealed that the ₹858 crore allocated for pollution control in the 2024-25 budget remains unutilized due to the lack of approval from the Union Environment Ministry .
Enforcement Gaps: Boards issue clearances but rarely impose penalties. The Air Act's 1987 amendment empowered closures, yet prosecutions are rare.
Broader Issues: Inadequate monitoring stations and focus on urban areas neglect rural sources like stubble burning.
This failure prompted the Supreme Court's 2025 directives, emphasizing boards' statutory duties under the Air Act.
Solutions: It fills executive voids, evolving jurisprudence (e.g., Polluter Pays in Vellore case) and enforcing rights (e.g., M.C. Mehta cases led to CNG mandates in Delhi). Activism raised awareness, catalyzed NCAP, and integrated sustainability into policy.
Problems Created: Lacks expertise for technical solutions, leading to short-term fixes (e.g., liquor ban near highways caused economic losses without gains). It undermines separation of powers, promoting "judicial despotism" and executive resentment.
Activism solves acute crises but needs restraint for sustainability; e.g., 2025 SC directives address gaps without micromanaging, promoting accountability.
Strengthen Enforcement: Fully staff SPCBs/CPCBs and utilize 100% of funds; impose stricter penalties under Air Act.
Source-Specific Measures: Ban stubble burning via subsidies for alternatives (e.g., bio-decomposers); promote EVs and CNG retrofits. Install anti-smog guns on high-rises and expand monitoring stations.
Renewables Push: Shift 50% energy to solar/wind by 2030, phasing out old coal plants; incentivize clean cooking via LPG expansion.
Regional Coordination: Enhance CAQM's role for NCR-wide GRAP enforcement, including inter-state crop residue management.
Public Engagement: Launch awareness campaigns and integrate air quality into school curricula; use AI for predictive modeling.
Judicial activism remains vital for India's environmental battles, but sustained executive action and global lessons are key to transforming directives into breathable air.
Source: THE HINDU
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Judicial activism has often been criticized for overstepping its boundaries into the executive and legislative domains. Critically analyze. 150 words |
Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive role in issuing directions and creating legal principles to ensure the enforcement of laws, often intervening when the executive or legislative branches fail to act effectively.
The Supreme Court issued the directives in a suo motu plea to address the long-pending vacancies in the Pollution Control Boards, which it saw as a key reason for the failure to manage air pollution effectively, particularly during the winter season.
A suo motu plea is an action taken by a court on its own initiative, without a petition from any party.
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
