- in Asia
- in Asia
- within Criminal Law, Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring and Tax topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
The Public Law Practice Group at Dentons Link Legal presents this edition of the Environment Law Newsletter, highlighting recent legal and regulatory developments shaping India’s environmental landscape. As concerns over environmental degradation continue to intensify, this issue examines key ecological and compliance challenges across industries with significant environmental footprints, alongside broader developments in pollution control, conservation, and sustainable resource governance. Through this newsletter, we aim to keep stakeholders informed of the evolving legal and policy framework driving environmental accountability, regulatory compliance, and sustainable resource management across sectors.
Courts
The Supreme Court delimits NGT's jurisdiction over land use and town-planning disputes
The Supreme Court, by its judgment dated January 20, 2026, held that the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) cannot adjudicate upon disputes that are essentially related to land use, zoning regulations, and town-planning compliance, even if projected as environmental concerns. The Court clarified that the NGT’s jurisdiction is confined to civil cases involving a “substantial question relating to environment” arising from enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“NGT Act”). In light of these observations, the Court stayed the NGT proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition before the High Court, leaving it open to the parties to seek revival of the NGT proceedings upon strict satisfaction of the jurisdictional requirements under Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act.
Cause Title: Raj Singh Gehlot and Ors. v. Amitabha Sen and Ors, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 97
The Supreme Court upholds NGT’s power to compute environmental compensation by reference to a violator’s scale of operations
The Supreme Court, by its judgment dated January 30, 2026, affirmed that the NGT is empowered to calculate environmental compensation by reference to a company’s scale of operations, including its turnover, production volume, or revenue generation. The Court reinforced the Polluter Pays Principle, observing that larger operations entail a larger environmental footprint. The Court further observed that greater resource use often leads to more emissions and more waste, and that it is logical for entities profiting from scale to bear commensurately higher environmental liability. The Court further held that, under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the NGT is competent to enhance compensation recommended by a Joint Committee where the recommended amount is inadequate to reflect the scale and impact of violations, and that such exercise of informed discretion does not amount to abdication of adjudicatory functions. While a uniform statutory formula is not prescribed, linking the scale of operations to environmental harm is a permissible exercise of discretion.
Cause Title: Rhythm County and Ors. v. Satish Sanjay Hegde and Ors, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 126
The Supreme Court issues Pan-India directions for implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026
The Supreme Court, by its judgment dated February 19, 2026, issued pan-India directions to ensure nationwide preparedness for the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 (“SWM Rules, 2026”), effective from 01.04.2026, framed by the Central Government under Sections 3, 6, and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (“EP Act”). The Court noted that the SWM Rules, 2026 transition to a digital-first circular economy framework, introducing Extended Bulk Waste Generator Responsibility (“EBWGR”), a fourth waste stream (wet, dry, sanitary, and special care), mandatory registration on a centralised portal, and a legal mandate for industries within a specified radius of waste plants to replace a percentage of their fuel intake with Refuse Derived Fuel. The Court directed the MoEFCC to issue directions under Section 5 of the EP Act to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to conduct infrastructure audits through District Collectors, mandated four-stream segregation with effect from 01.04.2026, and prescribed a three-tier enforcement mechanism - Tier 1: immediate fines for initial non-compliance; Tier 2: criminal prosecution under environmental laws for continued disregard; and Tier 3: prosecution extending to all persons responsible for contributing, abetting, or neglecting statutory obligations, including officials failing to exercise oversight duties. The Court further directed the establishment of a multi-level governance structure - State Level (Committee for Effective Implementation chaired by the Chief Secretary), District Level (District Magistrate/Collector empowered to review performance quarterly), and Gram Panchayat/Block Level (Department of Rural Development as nodal department) - and mandated that all Bulk Waste Generators be fully statutory compliant by 31.03.2026, with non-compliance attracting immediate Environmental Remediation and Compensation under Rule 17 without further notice. The Court also directed the integration of solid waste management protocols into school curricula under Rule 33, translation of citizen-facing summaries of the SWM Rules, 2026 into local languages, and classification of all major corporations based on a performance bar to be published on a centralized online portal.
Cause title: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Subhash C. Pandey and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 330
The Supreme Court enhances Environment Compensation Charge on commercial vehicles entering Delhi and mandates 5% annual revision
By its order dated 12 March 2026 in the M.C. Mehta proceedings, the Supreme Court approved the revised Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) rates for commercial vehicles entering Delhi, effective 1 April 2026. Accepting the proposal of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) as “reasonable, just and fair,” the Court sanctioned substantial increases in ECC rates, raising the charge for light commercial vehicles from Rs. 1,400 to 2,000 and for heavier commercial vehicles from Rs. 2,600 to 4,000.
To preserve the deterrent effect of the levy on vehicular pollution, the Court further directed that ECC rates shall increase by 5% annually, with effect from 1 April each year. The Court also clarified that commercial vehicles not entering Delhi for the supply of essential commodities should use the designated peripheral expressways and would consequently be exempt from the revised ECC.
Additionally, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was directed to rationalize its toll structure and undertake a comprehensive traffic study to support more effective traffic and pollution management measures.
Cause title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/1985.
National Green Tribunal declares river sand mining clearances illegal and directs Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to assess environmental compensation
The NGT, by its judgment dated 27 March 2026, Southern Zone, Chennai, set aside the environmental clearances granted to two river sand mining projects in Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal held that the projects had been erroneously classified under a category exempt from the requirement of conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) study.
The NGT further found that, contrary to the approval conditions of the environmental clearances, the project authorities had deployed mechanical excavators for mining operations, despite being permitted to undertake extraction only through manual methods. The Tribunal also observed that the environmental clearances had either lapsed or been improperly extended, and that subsequent modifications authorizing mechanized mining had altered the nature of the projects, thereby rendering the clearances invalid.
Holding that the mining activities had been carried out illegally, the Tribunal directed the CPCB to assess the environmental damage caused and determine appropriate environmental compensation payable by the Project Proponent, namely the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, within three months from the date of the judgment. The NGT further ruled that the entire period during which mechanized mining was conducted under the ‘B2’ category would be treated as illegal mining for the purposes of assessing liability and compensation.
Cause Title: T. Saravanakumar v. Tamil Nadu State Environment Impact Assessment Authority & Ors., Original Application No. 77 of 2023 (SZ) with Appeal No. 80 of 2022 (SZ), NGT Southern Zone, Chennai.
National Green Tribunal takes suo motu cognizance of Himalayan glacier instability
The NGT Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide its order dated 24 April 2026, registered a suo motu Original Application based on a news report published in The Hindu on 20 April 2026. The report highlighted the findings of a study conducted by researchers from IISc Bengaluru, IIT Bhubaneswar, and DRDO Chandigarh, which warned that unstable hanging glaciers located on steep mountain slopes in the Alaknanda Basin of Uttarakhand pose a significant risk of triggering catastrophic ice avalanches. According to the study, such avalanches could potentially impact major settlements, including Mana, Badrinath, and Hanuman Chatti. The study further noted a substantial increase in human exposure within vulnerable zones, with built-up areas expanding from approximately 8,000 square meters in 2000 to a projected 150,000 square meters by 2030.
The Tribunal held that the news item indicates violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and raises substantial issues relating to compliance of environmental norms. Accordingly, the Tribunal impleaded six respondents - MoEFCC, Dehradun; CPCB; Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board; National Mission for Clean Ganga; Department of Urban Development, Uttarakhand; and National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee - directing each to file their response by way of affidavit at least one week before the next hearing.
Cause Title: Suo Motu (Study Flags Overlooked Danger Posed By Hanging Glaciers On Mountain Slopes in Central Himalaya), 2026 SCC OnLine NGT 215
The Supreme Court constitutes High-Powered Expert Committee to reassess the definition of Aravalli Hills
The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member High-Powered Expert Committee to undertake a detailed review of the definition and demarcation of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, holding that decisions with such far-reaching environmental consequences must not be taken without expert evaluation. The Court expressed concern that the existing definition, restricting the Aravalli Range to areas within 500 meters between two or more Aravalli hills, could substantially narrow the protected area and facilitate mining and other disruptive activities in ecologically connected zones. This will carve out a large number of hill formations from environmental protection, given that only 1,048 of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the prescribed 100-metre elevation threshold. The Committee is to be headed ex officio by the Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education and has been directed to invite representations from all stakeholders, including the governments of Delhi, Rajasthan, and Haryana, environmental groups, mining lease holders, farmers, and local communities. The Committee will submit its report by August 31, 2026.
Cause Title: In Re Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10/2025 Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1404
The Supreme Court Quashes 2021 Memorandum Allowing Post-Facto Environmental Clearance.
The Supreme Court, by its judgment dated July 29, 2026, held that the prior EC regime under the EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory and projects commenced without such clearance cannot ordinarily be regularized. The Court upheld the Notification dated 14.03.2017 as valid delegated legislation, being a narrowly tailored, time-bound, one-time amnesty measure traceable to Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, the Court quashed the Office Memorandum (“OM”) dated 07.07.2021 with prospective effect, holding it to be an administrative instruction that created a perpetual post facto EC regime, lacked any cut-off date or identifiable class, supplanted the 2006 Notification, and failed the tests of reasonable classification and proportionality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Court overruled Pahwa Plastics (P) Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, (2023) 12 SCC 774 and D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, (2023) 20 SCC 469 to the extent they upheld the validity of the 2021 OM, and clarified that the declarations in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499 and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157 do not place an absolute prohibition against a valid one-time legislative regularization scheme. The Court directed that all ECs already granted under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM shall remain valid unless individually assailed, all pending applications shall be taken to their logical conclusion, no fresh applications shall be entertained under either instrument, and the Central Government is restrained from issuing administrative orders in future for grant of ex post facto EC save through a valid notification under Section 3 of the 1986 Act
Cause Title: Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1404
Executive & Regulatory Developments
Environmental (Protection) Fund Rules, 2026 notified-Converting penalties into green investments
On January 15, 2026, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”), in exercise of its rule-making powers under Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, notified the Environmental (Protection) Fund Rules, 2026. These Rules establish the first comprehensive fiscal framework specifically designed to channel environmental penalties towards ecological restoration and sustainability-oriented investments. The Environmental (Protection) Fund, constituted under Section 16 of the Act, is to be administered by the MoEFCC or by such authority or body as may be notified by the Central Government. Rule 3 delineates the permissible uses of the Fund, including ecological restoration, biodiversity conservation, environmental research, and other measures aimed at strengthening environmental protection. The Rules also impose a digital governance obligation on the CPCB, requiring it to maintain transparent and accessible records of Fund receipts and disbursements. Collectively, these measures mark an important shift from treating environmental penalties merely as a source of revenue to deploying them as targeted investments in environmental remediation, thereby reinforcing the operationalization of the Polluter Pays Principle.
India notifies emission intensity targets for energy-intensive sectors under the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme
The Government of India, by notification dated January 13, 2026, notified Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity (“GEI”) targets for 208 additional obligated entities across Petroleum Refineries, Petrochemicals, Textiles, and Secondary Aluminium sectors under the Compliance Mechanism of the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (“CCTS”), 2023. With this expansion, the compliance mechanism of the Indian Carbon Market (“ICM”) now covers 490 obligated entities across India’s most emission-intensive industries. The Government had first notified GEI targets in October 2025 for the Aluminium, Cement, Chlor-Alkali, and Pulp & Paper sectors, covering 282 obligated entities. The CCTS, notified in 2023, provides the overarching framework for the ICM and operates through two mechanisms - the Compliance Mechanism and the Offset Mechanism - under which obligated entities that outperform their assigned GEI targets are eligible to receive Carbon Credit Certificates tradable with entities unable to meet their targets.
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 come into force from April 1, replacing decade-old framework
The MoEFCC notified the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2026, with effect from April 01, 2026, superseding the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The SWM Rules, 2026 introduce a comprehensive overhaul of India’s waste management framework across five principal dimensions. Firstly, waste generators are now required to segregate waste at source into four distinct streams - wet, dry, sanitary, and special care - expanding the three-stream regime prescribed under the 2016 Rules, with each stream subject to a prescribed disposal pathway. Secondly, a polluter-pays mechanism has been codified under Rule 17, empowering SPCBs and PCCs to levy environmental compensation for violations such as unregistered operations, false reporting, forged documentation, and improper handling, with the CPCB empowered to issue directions to SPCBs or PCCs failing to act within a reasonable time. Thirdly, bulk waste generators, as defined by thresholds of floor area (20,000 sq.m. or above), water consumption (40,000 liters per day), or solid waste generation (100 kg per day), are subject to additional obligations including a new Extended Bulk Waste Generator Responsibility regime promoting on-site wet waste processing. Fourthly, the Rules mandate a centralized digital portal encompassing registration, authorization, real-time tracking, and audit reporting across the entire waste management chain. Lastly, the Rules prescribe buffer zone requirements around processing and disposal facilities exceeding five tonnes per day and direct states and union territories to identify and allocate suitable land for solid waste management infrastructure, incorporating such sites into master plans and land-use plans.
Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Amendment Rules, 2026: Strengthened Field Inspection Mandate for Forest Diversion Proposals
The MoEFCC by notification G.S.R. 174(E) dated March 11, 2026, notified the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Amendment Rules, 2026, amending sub-rule (12) of Rule 9 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023. The amendment mandates that, in addition to the field verification of every proposal by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, a simultaneous field inspection shall be undertaken for every proposal involving more than forty hectares of forest land by the Conservator of Forests, Chief Conservator of Forests, or Regional Chief Conservator of Forests holding charge of the concerned forest circle.
Contributors to the newsletter
Kabir Dixit, Counsel
Sanya Dua, Senior Associate
Sharvil Kala, Associate
Vasudha Banka, Associate
Pranjal Kumar Sinha, Associate
Kimaya Jain, Associate
Simran Kashyap, Associate
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]