Examine the role of the Supreme Court in shaping environmental policy through continuing mandamus, citing the Aravalli range case.

Continuing mandamus is a judicial technique in which the Supreme Court keeps a public interest matter pending indefinitely, issuing successive directions and monitoring compliance through expert committees. Rooted in Articles 32, 21 and 48A, it has made the Court a de facto policy-maker in forest and mining governance — effective in filling regulatory gaps, but not without institutional costs.

How the tool shapes policy

• Judicial definition-making: in T.N. Godavarman (order of 12.12.1996), the Court read "forest" in its dictionary sense, extending the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to all forests irrespective of classification [1].
• Institutional creation: expert bodies such as the Central Empowered Committee and the Forest Survey of India are drafted in to supply technical inputs the executive had not generated.
• Regulatory freeze: interim orders halt activity pending scientific study, shifting the burden of proof onto polluters.

The Aravalli case as illustration

• Prolonged monitoring yielded a uniform, science-based definition: landforms rising 100 metres above local relief, with hills within 500 metres clustered into "Aravalli Ranges", protecting intervening valleys and slopes [2].
• The Court ordered a freeze on new mining leases until a sustainable mining plan is prepared, and in its judgment of 20.11.2025 endorsed the committee's recommendations on curbing illegal mining [2].
• It catalysed executive action across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat — the Aravalli Green Wall Project greening a 5-km buffer illustrates policy follow-through against desertification from the Thar [3].

Limitations

• Committee-driven decisions are criticised for thin field study, limited public consultation and exclusion of rural and adivasi voices, as flagged by civil society before the panel's August 2026 deadline [4].
• Compressed timelines and official-heavy panels risk substituting expert opinion for participatory environmental assessment.

Continuing mandamus has thus converted judicial oversight into durable ecological policy where legislative clarity was absent. Its credibility now depends on the executive institutionalising these standards through statutory notification, and on committees adopting cumulative, participatory impact assessment — aligning judicial stewardship with Article 48A and SDG 15 on life on land.