·The Hindu·15 marks·250–350 words

Multiplicity of agencies often results in diffused accountability in environmental governance. Critically analyse.

New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →
In this answer
  1. How multiplicity diffuses accountability
  2. Why multiplicity is not the sole culprit
  3. Way forward

In India, environmental governance is spread across Union ministries, the CPCB, State boards, coastal authorities, planning bodies and the NGT. Ennore residents in Chennai published a report card assessing 24 government bodies, and five scored zero [1]. It shows how this spread can blur who owns a problem. But multiplicity is more a symptom than the root cause.

How multiplicity diffuses accountability

  • Fragmented mandates: CMDA (planning), TNSCZMA (coast), PWD (water) and the Energy Department all scored zero [1]. Each regulates one slice of the same creek.
  • Weak apex coordination: The Chief Secretary's office, which is meant to coordinate departments, also scored zero [1].
  • No owner after incidents: After a 4–6 tonne fish kill in Ennore Creek in August 2026, an RTI reply showed no official report on its cause or on action taken. Fishers lost about three weeks of work [1].
  • Broken liability chain: The Fly Ash Utilisation Notification, 2021 provides for environmental compensation on the polluter pays principle [2]. But if no agency investigates the cause, no polluter can be billed.
  • Orders without follow-through: Court directions remain unmet, and this is the second year in a row of a poor grade [1].

Why multiplicity is not the sole culprit

  • Specialisation is necessary: Coasts, wetlands, emissions and energy need different technical skills. One super-regulator would be overloaded.
  • Layers can act as checks: CPCB maintains approved auditors for annual compliance audits of power plants and ash users [3]. The NGT and RTI add outside scrutiny.
  • Deeper causes: Self-reported compliance data, understaffed regulators and missing timelines would weaken even a single agency.
  • Clear tasks get done: The same report card recorded progress in solid waste management [1].

Way forward

  • Lead-agency principle: Name one nodal officer for each eco-sensitive zone to track every direction.
  • Time-bound fish-kill protocol: Publish the cause within a fixed time so that compensation can be enforced [2].
  • Public compliance audits [3] and institutionalised social audits.

Multiplicity diffuses accountability mainly when mandates overlap without a clear owner, deadlines or public reporting. The answer is not merging agencies. India needs designated lead agencies, open audits and a formal role for citizens. That would give real effect to Article 48A, the Article 21 right to a healthy environment, and SDGs 14 and 16.

Sources

  1. 1The Hindu, "Ennore residents' report card for govt. flags gaps in wetland restoration, pollution control" (Chennai, 30 Oct 2026)24 bodies assessed, 5 zero scorers (CMDA, TNSCZMA, PWD, Energy Dept., Chief Secretary's office); fish kill of 4–6 tonnes and three weeks of lost fishing; RTI reply showing no cause report; second year of a poor grade; progress in solid waste management
  2. 2MoEFCC, Fly Ash Utilisation Notification, 2021 (S.O. 5481(E), 31 Dec 2021)environmental compensation on the polluter pays principle
  3. 3CPCB, Fly Ash Management and UtilizationCPCB-approved auditors for annual compliance audits of power plants and ash users

More from this note