Examine the Centre-State tensions inherent in environmental federalism in India, with reference to the Western Ghats ESA notification.

Environmental federalism in India rests on a divided competence: forests and wildlife are Concurrent subjects, while land, agriculture and mining regulation sit largely with States. The Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) notification — pending across seven drafts since 2014 — exposes how this asymmetry converts ecological science into a Centre-State contest.

Constitutional and legal roots of the tension

• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Centre to restrict industries and operations in any area, enabling unilateral ESA notification [1].
• Yet enforcement, land records and livelihood costs fall on States, creating a "Centre decides, State pays" imbalance.
• International commitments add pressure: 39 Western Ghats sites are UNESCO World Heritage components spanning six States, requiring multi-tier coordination [2].

How the tension plays out in the Western Ghats

• Expert-driven zoning versus political consent: the Gadgil (WGEEP, 2010) panel proposed ESA over 142 talukas; the Kasturirangan HLWG (2012) cut it to ~37% of the Ghats — dilution driven by State resistance, not new science.
• Objections to extent and activities: States unanimously accepted the need to protect the Ghats but contested the area demarcated and the list of prohibited activities in the draft [3].
• Political economy: the July 2024 draft covering ~56,800 sq. km restricts quarrying, mining and large infrastructure, directly touching plantation and construction livelihoods in Kerala and Karnataka [4].
• Implications: perpetual draft status creates regulatory limbo — neither ecological protection nor development certainty — while the Wayanad landslides underscored the cost of delay.

Way forward Cooperative, not coercive, federalism offers the exit. Ground-truthing of ESA boundaries jointly with State revenue departments, Gram Sabha consultation in the spirit of the Forest Rights Act, ecosystem-service compensation for affected districts, and phased State-wise notification can reconcile science with consent. Article 48A and the SDG-15 commitment bind Centre and States alike; treating States as partners rather than subjects is the surest route to a durable Western Ghats settlement.