Is judicial monitoring an effective substitute for executive action in environmental governance? Examine with reference to air quality management in Delhi.

The Supreme Court has read the right to clean air into Article 21. Through M.C. Mehta v. Union of India it has long steered Delhi's air policy. Yet in November 2026 the Court itself called vehicle and construction bans "old, tried and failed tools" [1]. Judicial monitoring can catalyse action, but it cannot replace executive delivery.

Where judicial monitoring has worked

• Agenda-setting: continuing mandamus kept the executive answerable, and the policy response led to a statutory airshed body under the CAQM Act, 2021.
• Forcing science: an SC-mandated expert report found PM2.5 to be the key pollutant. It put transport at 23%, biomass burning at 20% and dust at 15% of Delhi's PM2.5 [2].
• Accountability: the Court asked CAQM for a "significant scientific method" beyond bans [1], and GRAP was made more stringent in Nov 2025 [5].

Why it cannot substitute for the executive

• Institutional limits: courts lack technical staff, budgets and enforcement machinery. Even the Bench admitted that "very poor" AQI is now "normal" [1].
• Episodic outcomes: court pressure produces emergency curbs. GRAP Stage-II ran from 19 Oct 2025 to 18 Feb 2026 [3], so the emergency became routine governance.
• Mis-targeted tools: dust is about 17% of winter PM2.5 but 38% in summer [4]. Yet winter construction bans are the default, and their costs fall on daily-wage workers.
• Diffused accountability: with the Court in charge, the executive settles for firefighting. In the ASG's words, "we are only doing management" [1].
• Federal coordination: stubble burning and pollution blown in from other States need Centre–State negotiation. Even Stage-III office staffing is left to the States [5].

What executive action must deliver

• A source-based GRAP that uses the new real-time air pollution analysis facility [6].
• NCAP measured by PM2.5, with regional, source-wise targets.
• Crop-residue management, BS-VI enforcement, EV transition and enforcement of the C&D waste rules.

Judicial monitoring works as Delhi's environmental conscience and a catalyst for action. It is not a substitute for administration. The Court should demand time-bound cuts in baseline PM2.5, and the executive and CAQM must own delivery. That division of labour would give real effect to Article 21 and SDG 11.6 (urban air quality).