In November 2024, Delhi’s Air Quality Index (AQI) reached an record level of 1500, categorizing the city as ‘hazardous’ and solidifying its status as the most polluted urban area globally. This alarming statistic highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms in environmental governance. Across the globe, similar environmental crises emerge within varying institutional and legal contexts. For instance, in the European Union (EU), despite the existence of a robust legal framework for environmental protection, Member States frequently encounter challenges in effectively implementing directives, such as the Air Quality Directive, thereby exposing the limitations of a multi-level governance system.
In contrast, India’s judiciary has assumed an interventionist role to address governance deficits, and to enforce compliance and coordinate fragmented institutional efforts. The Supreme Court of India has been pivotal in tackling air quality concerns by issuing iterative directives designed to compel governmental action in response to entrenched environmental challenges. Conversely, the EU operates within a decentralized framework guided by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, wherein Member States retain significant autonomy in driving environmental governance. While this model affords flexibility and accommodates local contexts, it often struggles with delays and inconsistencies in compliance across jurisdictions.
This blogpost undertakes a comparative analysis of these divergent governance approaches, investigating how judicial oversight in India and decentralized governance in the EU address institutional fragmentation in environmental governance. It further explores whether the EU might incorporate elements of India’s interventionist model without undermining the principle of subsidiarity or whether India could integrate collaborative mechanisms prevalent in the EU. By juxtaposing these systems, the blogpost seeks to contribute to the evolving scholarly discourse on the roles of judicial and institutional frameworks in addressing global environmental challenges.
India’s Fragmented Governance on Pollution
Delhi’s air pollution crisis underscores the inherent challenges of environmental governance within a multi-tiered federal system. In India, governance responsibilities are dispersed across various levels of government, resulting in significant institutional fragmentation. The central government is tasked with establishing emissions standards, while state governments manage localized environmental policies. Compounding this complexity, neighbouring states contribute to pollution through practices such as stubble burning, which directly impacts air quality in the National Capital Region. Municipal corporations, charged with waste management and enforcing building codes, frequently face resource constraints and lack effective enforcement mechanisms. This diffusion of responsibilities has led to jurisdictional overlaps and ambiguous lines of accountability.
Amidst these systemic inefficiencies, the Indian judiciary particularly the country’s Supreme Court has assumed an increasingly prominent role. Through mechanisms such as continuing mandamus, a judicial order that retains jurisdiction over a case for ongoing oversight—it has actively intervened to address governance failures. A landmark example is the enduring case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1984), through which the Court has monitored and directed pollution control measures for decades. Recent judicial interventions in the same ongoing case have targeted critical issues such as air quality management and stubble burning, compelling authorities to take action.
While these judicial measures have at times achieved tangible outcomes in addressing urgent environmental challenges, they raise important constitutional questions about the separation of powers. The judiciary’s expansive role in environmental governance has sparked debates regarding its constitutional mandate, particularly the appropriateness of judicial oversight in areas traditionally within the purview of the executive and legislative branches. These interventions, while effective in addressing immediate crises, highlight a deeper systemic flaw: the absence of robust and well-coordinated frameworks for environmental governance.
EU’s Multi-Level Environmental Governance
The European Union (EU) operates within a governance framework that relies on Member States to implement environmental directives, guided by the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. This approach allows decisions to be taken at the most effective level, granting Member States flexibility in adapting EU environmental policies to their specific contexts. Legal instruments such as the Air Quality Directive and Renewable Energy Directive set binding targets, yet the responsibility for enforcement rests with national governments. While this decentralized model facilitates adaptation to local conditions, it has also resulted in inconsistent compliance across the Union.
A notable example is the case of ClientEarth v. Flemish Region, where the Brussels Court of First Instance held the Flemish government accountable for breaching EU air quality standards, thereby prolonging urban populations’ exposure to hazardous pollution levels. Similarly, Poland’s reluctance to comply with coal phase-out obligations exemplifies the challenges of aligning national priorities with collective EU environmental objectives. These instances are indicative of the tension between the Union’s overarching policy goals and the autonomy of individual Member States in their implementation.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) typically addresses such issues through reactive mechanisms, including infringement procedures and preliminary rulings. These mechanisms operate within the framework of proportionality and respect for Member State autonomy, ensuring that judicial interventions remain tailored and context-sensitive. However, this reactive approach often limits the CJEU’s ability to deliver immediate corrective measures, as enforcement ultimately relies on the willingness and capacity of Member States to comply. This dependency highlights a critical vulnerability in the EU’s multi-level governance model, where the balance between national sovereignty and collective environmental commitments remains precarious.
Comparative Lessons for India and Europe
The divergent governance models of India and the EU provide valuable insights for addressing the multifaceted challenges of environmental governance in an era marked by escalating environmental crises. While India’s judiciary-driven approach ensures immediate responses to governance failures, it often marginalizes institutional participation and overlooks long-term capacity-building. Conversely, the EU’s decentralized framework, rooted in subsidiarity and collaboration, fosters participatory governance but frequently struggles with enforcement and the timely implementation of environmental directives. By leveraging each other’s strengths and addressing inherent weaknesses, both systems can adapt more effectively to the complexities of modern environmental governance.
For the EU, India’s use of continuing mandamus offers a compelling example of sustained judicial oversight in the face of systemic environmental challenges. CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), could explore mechanisms to enhance their oversight of Member State compliance with environmental obligations. For instance, the CJEU has demonstrated its capacity to enforce compliance through financial penalties and structured monitoring in cases of persistent non-compliance, such as Commission v. France (Case C-304/02). Building on this precedent, EU courts could require Member States to submit periodic progress reports on compliance with environmental directives, particularly in instances of systemic environmental violations. Such measures would enable EU courts to monitor implementation continuously, rather than intervening only after non-compliance becomes evident. Furthermore, structured timelines for meeting environmental commitments, combined with time-bound judicial orders for corrective action, could enhance the effectiveness of enforcement. By adopting these mechanisms, EU courts could preserve the principle of subsidiarity while addressing the inertia often associated with Member State compliance, ensuring that urgent environmental goals are met within appropriate timeframes.
However, introducing sustained judicial oversight in the EU would necessitate a delicate balance to safeguard Member State autonomy, a foundational element of the Union’s governance framework. Judicial interventions must adhere to the principle of proportionality, ensuring that measures are context-sensitive and respect the unique circumstances of each Member State. For instance, the CJEU could require Member States to submit detailed, localized action plans to fulfil their obligations under EU environmental directives. These plans could then be subject to judicial review and periodic assessments, providing a structured framework that aligns national initiatives with EU-wide objectives. Such an approach would strengthen the collaborative ethos of the EU’s governance model while addressing inconsistencies in compliance and implementation.
India, by contrast, could draw inspiration from the EU’s emphasis on participatory governance and stakeholder engagement. The European Environment Agency (EEA) underscores that public participation in environmental decision-making is both a legal right and a practical necessity for sustainability transitions While the interventionist role of the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in compelling action on urgent environmental issues, it often bypasses broader consultation with affected stakeholders and experts. Incorporating mechanisms for public and expert engagement would enhance the legitimacy and efficacy of judicial interventions. For example, courts could mandate public hearings or solicit input from technical experts before issuing directives in environmental cases. This inclusive approach would ensure that judicial orders are grounded in practical realities and informed by diverse perspectives, fostering greater trust and collaboration in governance.
Additionally, India could benefit from institutionalizing platforms for dialogue between the judiciary, executive, civil society, and affected communities. Such platforms could address the systemic fragmentation that frequently undermines environmental governance by facilitating coordination among various levels of government and aligning national and local priorities. Adopting collaborative mechanisms, akin to those prevalent in the EU, could bridge jurisdictional gaps and cultivate a shared sense of responsibility for environmental protection. Transitioning from a predominantly top-down enforcement model to a participatory governance framework would not only alleviate the judiciary’s burden but also encourage sustainable, long-term reforms.
Both India and the EU face the dual challenge of balancing judicial intervention with the imperative of building institutional capacity. While India must work toward reducing its reliance on judicial mandates by strengthening governance structures, the EU should complement its collaborative model with mechanisms for sustained oversight to ensure timely and effective implementation of environmental policies. By learning from each other’s governance approaches, these jurisdictions can better address their respective challenges, contributing meaningfully to the broader global effort of combating environmental degradation and addressing planetary crises.
