Regulatory Failure - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Takes Charge: Major Order to Save Rajasthan’s Polluted Rivers

10Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Takes Charge: Major Order to Save Rajasthan’s Polluted Rivers

The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses a pollution-free environment. Criticizing prolonged state inaction, the Court modified an interim stay on NGT orders to allow enforcement of remedial measures. It constituted a High-Level Oversight Committee to ensure time-bound implementation, underscoring the constitutional duty to protect public health and ecology. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from severe and long-standing industrial and sewage pollution in the Jojari, Bandi, and Luni river system in Rajasthan, endangering the health and livelihoods of nearly two million people. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance in September 2025 based on a documentary highlighting the crisis. This matter was clubbed with several pending civil appeals aga...

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that a valid District Survey Report (DSR), prepared under the EIA Notification, 2016, is mandatory for granting environmental clearance for sand mining. The Supreme Court held that a DSR is legally untenable without a scientific replenishment study, as it forms the foundational basis for determining sustainable extraction limits and ensuring ecological balance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for sand mining in three blocks on the Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu & Kashmir. The project proponent, contracted by the National Highway Authority of India for a Srinagar ring road, applied for the EC. Initially, the J&K Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) rejected the proposal in January 2022, citing ...

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...