Judicial interventions have shaped India's air-quality governance, yet the Supreme Court recently said the people, not the judiciary, must act. Critically analyse the limits of judicial activism in environmental governance.

The Supreme Court has read the right to a clean environment into Article 21 and has kept watch on Delhi's air through continuing mandamus. On 6 November 2026, however, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant flagged rising vehicular emissions in Delhi-NCR and said the people, not the judiciary, must act [1]. That is an open admission that governing through the courts has limits.

Contributions of judicial activism

• Policy catalyst: in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court ordered Delhi's public transport to switch to CNG, pushing a slow-moving executive.
• Regional accountability: the Court asked the MCD, the Delhi Government, Delhi Traffic Police, UP, Haryana and Rajasthan to explain how they regulate vehicles entering Delhi. This treats pollution as an airshed problem [1].
• Institutional push: years of court oversight came before the statutory CAQM (2021 Act). CAQM's binding directions now bar non-clean buses from entering Delhi from 1 November 2026 [2].

Limits of judicial activism

• Enforcement deficit: courts cannot inspect testing centres or patrol borders. The CAG found that only 2.98 lakh of 47.51 lakh end-of-life vehicles were deregistered between 2018-19 and 2020-21 [3].
• Data and expertise gap: the CAG noted that Delhi had no data on how much each vehicle type pollutes [3]. Without that data, judicial orders are blunt tools. Expert bodies such as CAQM are better placed to set technical rules.
• Separation of powers: blanket bans on vehicles affect livelihoods without democratic debate. Orders that keep changing create uncertainty for regulators.
• Episodic, not structural: attention peaks at Deepavali and the stubble-burning season. Vehicle emissions, the year-round source, get less sustained focus [1]. Repeated rounds of compliance reports can turn into a loop with no result.
• Behavioural frontier: a court order cannot change how people choose to travel.

Judicial activism has filled the gaps left by executive inaction, but it cannot replace everyday administration or citizens' choices. The Court's best role is not to step back. It should set time-bound, measurable targets for CAQM and the States. The executive must build audited emission testing, vehicle-level data and clean public transport. Citizens must act on their Article 51A(g) duty to protect the environment. Together, these steps would help India move towards SDG 11.6 (cleaner urban air).