The Bombay High Court observed that Mumbai’s recurring monsoon flooding is not solely the BMC’s responsibility, stating that encroachments, blocked drains and illegal constructions by citizens have worsened the crisis. The Court urged shared accountability, remarking, “We should stop blaming the corporation.”
The Delhi High Court questioned the Centre’s move to reclaim land occupied by major sporting institutions, warning against the loss of green spaces in the capital. Expressing concern over worsening environmental conditions, the Court observed that unchecked urbanisation could severely impact public health and quality of life.
The Supreme Court directed preparation of a time-bound eviction plan to remove encroachments from the Agasthyamalai ecological landscape and ordered disciplinary and legal action against 118 serving and retired government servants identified as encroachers, stressing the constitutional duty to protect fragile ecosystems and endangered wildlife.
The Supreme Court sought the Central government’s response on a petition challenging the Wetlands Rules, 2017 definition of “wetland,” with petitioners alleging vagueness weakened environmental safeguards for ecologically sensitive areas, while directing the Union government and National Wetlands Committee to respond by August 10.
The Supreme Court issued directions to Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh to curb illegal sand mining around the National Chambal Sanctuary, stressing protection of ecologically sensitive habitats and endangered wildlife while addressing socio-economic causes behind rampant mining activities in the Chambal region.
Today, On 12th February, The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh’s plea challenging the legality of ex post facto environmental clearances. Chief Justice Surya Kant warned him, “Have you filed this for media publicity? Be ready for exemplary costs.”
The Supreme Court has taken suo motu action after observing that the Uttarakhand government remained a “mute spectator” while forest land was being illegally grabbed. The Court ordered a fact-finding inquiry, stopped all construction, and directed the Forest Department to take possession of vacant land.
