Environmental Litigation In India: Air Pollution, Mining Disputes, And Structural Reform Imperatives
Introduction
Under the aegis of environmental litigation, the entire ecology is shielded as environmental jurisprudence plays an indispensable role in protecting and preserving the environment by safeguarding human health, dignity, survival and striving to bring and achieve an ecological equilibrium and ensuring economic development does not override sustainable development. But with the persistent air pollution throttling the NCR Delhi with Air Quality Index (AQI) skyrocketing above 400 levels and Aravalli hills facing the perils of administrative redefinition and consequential deprivation of legal protection, environmental litigation in India has reached a critical juncture where we find ourselves bound by the shackles of ineffective implementation of policies, administrative gaps and blurred boundaries of development and sustenance. The Supreme Court of India, through an elaborative interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, has crystallized environmental protection into a fundamental right, thereby positioning the judiciary as the rational nexus for environmental administration. Despite decades of judicial intervention, continuing mandamus, and the evolution of sophisticated environmental ideologies, India continues to grapple with environmental degradation. The Supreme Court’s increasingly candid expressions of frustration from Delhi’s chronic air pollution and Aravalli hills mining dispute reflect not just judicial overreach but also the limits of adjudication in the face of administrative inertia and structural malaise that require structural reformation, accountability and transparency in the governance. This research article examines the current landscape of environmental litigation, the Supreme Court’s expressed frustration and disappointment with the ongoing persistent environmental crisis, the constitutional underpinnings related to environmental law, and the broader accountability and sustainability questions raised by such litigation. The article also endeavours to make everybody ponder that what lies at the heart of ecological preservation is a choice that is before us that whether we blatantly wish to pursue our economic ambitions or strive to achieve a balance between economic development and environmental sustainability.
Constitutional Basis Of Environmental Litigation
- Article 21 and environmental protection
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and the Supreme Court in a multitude of cases has included the right to a clean and healthy environment under its ambit recognizing that life with dignity requires a pollution-free environment, free from disease and infection which is essential for human survival and quality of life. In the case of Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana[1], the court recognized the right to a clean environment as an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgement shed light on the responsibility of the state to preserve ecological balance and furnish a clean atmosphere. It declared that environmental degradation impedes the enjoyment of life with human dignity, leading to violation of Article 21.
- Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties
Article 48A of the Constitution states that the State should endeavour to protect and improve the environment, as well as to maintain the country’s forests and animals. According to Article 51A, Clause (g), every Indian citizen has a duty to protect and improve the environment, which includes lakes, rivers, forests, and animals, as well as to have compassion for all living creatures. This Court concluded in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[2] that Article 21 must be taken into consideration while interpreting Articles 48A and 51A(g):
“8. …. These two articles have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for “life”, would be hazardous to “life” within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.”[3]
Persistent Air Pollution In Delhi Through The Prism Of Right To Life Under Article 21 Of The Indian Constitution
A 2025 Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) report found that Delhi-NCR residents lose up to 8.2 years of life expectancy compared to WHO safe air standards, and even under India’s national standard, life expectancy loss is around 4.7 years.[4] As a capital, the city of Delhi which is meant to thrive in every possible aspect is battling with the most hazardous air pollution with the AQI levels proliferating above 400 levels therefore, thwarting the right to live in a clean and healthy environment guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens. Despite numerous landmark judgements from the Supreme Court, policies and strategies by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, and directions from the government, Delhi finds itself gasping for fresh and clean air. The Supreme Court has explicitly expressed its frustration and disappointment with the Centre for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for treating pollution curbing as a seasonal exercise rather than formulating a substantial annual strategy to grapple with such a daunting issue which is detrimental for everyone’s health. The incessant failures in effective implementation have led the court question the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms. In the landmark judgement of A.P Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu[5], the Supreme Court established the Precautionary Principle and the burden of proof in environmental litigation while synchronously reinstating that environmental protection will always take precedence over industrial development and established the accountability of the institutions to ensure the implementation of policies to mitigate the drastic effects of pollution and the importance of scientific expertise in environmental decision-making.
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the meaning and essence of Article 21: Right to Life encompassing the right to live in a clean and healthy environment and freedom from environmental hazards, thereby positioning it within the purview of Right to Life and holding it intrinsic. Article 21 provides a rudimentary foundation but meaningful protection and upholding of the Right to Life can only be sustained through structural reforms, institutional accountability and efficacy, scientific policy formulation and substantial enforcement beyond the courtroom.
The Aravalli Hills Mining Issue: Beyond Metres, Maps And Mining Leases
Stretching across nearly 670 kms from Gujarat through Rajasthan to Haryana and Delhi-NCR, the Aravalli hills is not just a geological formation but a green buffer that functions as ‘living defence system’ of North India. The Aravalli range plays a crucial role in preventing desertification, regulating groundwater, and acting as a natural barrier against air-borne dust. Unregulated mining causes irreversible damage to the vast biodiversity and habitation of the hills.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a “uniform definition” of the Aravalli hills based primarily on a 100-metre elevation threshold, following recommendations from the Forest Survey of India, the Geological Survey of India and the Central Empowered Committee. Under this definition, only landforms rising at least 100 metres above the surrounding terrain would qualify as Aravalli hills, and a “range” would be recognised if such hills occurred within 500 metres of one another. The intent, as articulated, was to resolve long-standing ambiguities that had complicated the enforcement of mining restrictions across states.[6] Such elevation- based classification can potentially dilute the legal protection to many parts of the range. According to an internal Forest Survey of India (FSI) assessment, 100-metre threshold excludes over 90% of the Aravalli system from the legal protection reflecting how the narrow scope of the definition excludes an enormous chunk of the hills from legal protection and paves the way for mining and consequently ecological degradation. The protection of the Aravalli range is now subject to the bracket of this 100-metre criterion symbolising how essential it is to minutely consider the consequences of limiting something within the bracket of a definition.
In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India[7], the Supreme Court provided an expansive interpretation of forest conservation, extending beyond notified forests. It subsequently shaped the mining-related environmental litigation, including cases concerning the Aravallis. The judicial willingness to reconsider its stance on redefining the Aravallis reflects that ecological realities cannot be reduced to rigid legal metrics.
Policy Implementation, Governmental Accountability And Structural Gaps
In light of the environmental crisis unfolding before us, the gaps in effective implementation of policies, regulatory inertia and urgent institutional reforms are also revealed. Judicial scrutiny has repeatedly highlighted that environmental policies often remain confined to paper compliance but lack practical implications. Such administrative deficits not only disappoint judicial mandates but also erode the constitutional obligation of the State to protect life and public health under Article 21, underscoring the need for structural reform beyond episodic judicial intervention.
Conclusion
In the contemporary world of prevailing environmental crisis where severe air pollution is throttling the atmosphere of NCR Delhi and the green buffer of Aravallis hills is in great peril, environmental jurisprudence is a catalyst, not a cure. The Supreme Courts’s frustration with persistent pollution and its ambivalence over judicially created technical definitions underscores the limits of litigation as a standalone tool. The way forward necessitates strengthening regulatory authorities, blending scientific expertise in decision-making, and enforcing articulately defined accountability mechanisms for administrative non-compliance.
Protecting the environment while pursuing development requires structural reform, effective administration, and sustained efforts. Environmental litigation can initiate change, but lasting environmental protection depends on accountable and resilient institutions.
[1] Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577
[2] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213
[3] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213 paragraph 8 (SCC online)
[4] Air Quality Life Index (AQLI), Air Pollution and Life Expectancy: India Factsheet 2025 (Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, 2025)
[5] A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayadu, (1999) 2SCC 718
[6] Amal Chandra, The Aravalli debate is ultimately not just about metres, maps or mining leases, Down To Earth (26 Dec.2025) (online), available at https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/the-aravalli-debate-is-ultimately-not-just-about-metres-maps-or-mining-leases
[7] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267
Name of the author: Maanvika Singh
College: University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University
Year: 3rd