While a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning the Aravalli hills has faced significant scrutiny, the year 2025 also witnessed the apex court consistently acting as a vigilant guardian of India's environment. From the Himalayan foothills to the southern Western Ghats, the court issued a series of decisive orders aimed at halting ecological degradation, protecting biodiversity, and holding authorities accountable.
A Pattern of Proactive Intervention
The Supreme Court's role transcended mere oversight, evolving into proactive intervention to safeguard the nation's rich ecological heritage. India, home to over 91,000 animal species and 45,000 plant species, saw its highest court extend judicial protection from endangered wildlife to critical coastal and marine zones. This vigilant stance was evident in multiple landmark orders passed throughout the year.
In a sharp rebuke to the Uttarakhand government, the Supreme Court condemned years of forest land grabbing, labeling the state a "silent spectator" to widespread encroachment. The bench ordered a formal probe into the land seizures, highlighting judicial intolerance for negligence in forest conservation.
Key Judicial Directives Across India
The court's environmental jurisprudence in 5 showcased a national scope, addressing diverse threats across different states.
In Jharkhand, the court on October 8 directed the state government to declare the Saranda forest a wildlife sanctuary. This region, known as the 'Land of Seven Hundred Hills', contains Asia's largest Sal forests spanning 314 square kilometres. The bench, comprising former Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K V Chandran, criticized the state for delaying the notification and acted against illegal mining and deforestation threatening the ecosystem.
In a nationwide directive on November 13, the Supreme Court banned all mining activities within one kilometre of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The same bench ruled such mining as "hazardous for wildlife and ecological balance" and ordered an immediate cessation, acknowledging threats from habitat destruction and pollution.
Focusing on riverine ecology, the court in April directed the Centre and Bihar government to submit a detailed report on encroachments along the Ganga's banks and threats to the Gangetic dolphin. The order by Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan came on a petition highlighting 151 illegal structures in the Sambalpur Diara region, which risked contaminating Patna's drinking water and endangering dolphin populations.
For tiger conservation, the court in November set new safeguards, ruling that no safari would be permitted in core or critical tiger habitats. Tiger safaris were restricted to non-forest or degraded forest land within buffer zones, and crucially, not within vital tiger corridors, as per findings related to Uttarakhand's Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve.
Addressing Urban and Regional Crises
The court's vigilance also extended to urban environmental crises and human-wildlife conflict zones.
To combat air pollution in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court on December 17 directed authorities to urgently address traffic congestion at toll plazas on Delhi borders. The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked the NHAI and MCD to consider temporarily closing or relocating nine toll points, noting that vehicle queues were significantly increasing emissions.
In the Nilgiris of Tamil Nadu, the court on December 20 made a powerful observation in favor of animal rights while hearing petitions from hotel and resort owners. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi stated that "animals suffer silently when their migration paths are blocked" by commercial ventures. The court deferred the hearing to January 2026 but emphasized that the benefit must go to animals, who are the silent victims of developments in notified elephant corridors on the Sigur Plateau.
These series of orders, spanning the length and breadth of India, underscore a consistent judicial effort in 2025 to balance development with ecological imperatives. The Supreme Court positioned itself as a critical check against environmental neglect, even as its individual rulings, like the one on the Aravallis, sparked debate.
