Discuss the role of environmental movements in shaping the environmental governance in India. (2024, 20 Marks)
Maria Carmen Lemos and Arun Agrawal (2006) define environmental governance as the regulatory processes, mechanisms and organisations through which political actors influence environmental actions and outcomes. Indian movements are often dismissed as “empty-stomach” livelihood agitations. Yet they reshaped this architecture: who decides, by what procedure, and in which forum.
Livelihood as the Governance Question
- The dismissal misreads them. Ramachandra Guha and Joan Martínez-Alier show that for the poor the commons is the livelihood, so an environmentalism of the poor is about control of resources.
- The contest is old. Colonial Forest Acts (1865, 1878) made forests state property, and the tribal risings that followed were early revolts against that model of governance.
- Rajni Kothari‘s non-party political process describes how movements pushed onto the agenda issues that parties ignored.
Channels of Influence
| Channel | Movement input | Governance outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Law and institutions | Chipko; Silent Valley; Bhopal survivors | Fifteen-year Himalayan felling ban and Forest (Conservation) Act 1980; Silent Valley National Park (1984); Environment (Protection) Act 1986 |
| Appraisal | Anti-dam and anti-mining campaigns | EIA (1994), public hearings added in 1997, recast in 2006 |
| Displacement | Narmada, Tehri | Rehabilitation policies (2003, 2007); LARR 2013, with social impact assessment and consent |
| Participation | Adivasi self-rule and forest-rights campaigns | PESA 1996; Forest Rights Act 2006, with gram sabha claims and consent; Niyamgiri’s twelve gram sabhas (2013) |
The judicial route
Upendra Baxi called public interest litigation social action litigation. Through it, movements turned Article 21 into a source of environmental rights:
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (1985) shut quarries in the Doon Valley.
- The M. C. Mehta cases gave India absolute liability (1987).
- Vellore Citizens (1996) adopted the precautionary and polluter-pays principles.
- T. N. Godavarman (1996) gave “forest” its dictionary meaning and kept the case open under continuing mandamus. It produced the court-ordered compensatory afforestation fund, which became statutory as CAMPA in 2016.
- The NGT Act 2010 created a specialist forum any aggrieved person can approach.
- M. K. Ranjitsinh (21 March 2024) recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21.
Knowledge and advocacy
Movement-linked experts built governance knowledge outside the state. The Centre for Science and Environment‘s State of India’s Environment reports (from 1982) set the method, and its 2003 finding of pesticides in soft drinks led to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain‘s per-capita equity argument (1991) still frames India’s climate diplomacy. Narain’s summary: environment is about deepening democracy.
Limits and Recentralisation
- Firefighting. Narain notes that wins are site-specific and must be fought again at every new project.
- Captured participation. Public hearings are often stage-managed. At Sijimali, villagers allege the 2023 gram sabha records were forged. Hasdeo’s Ghatbarra village had its community forest rights cancelled, and the High Court upheld the cancellation in 2025.
- Reallocated discretion. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 narrows the definition of forest, and the Jan Vishwas Act 2023 decriminalises offences under the Environment Protection and Air Acts. In November 2025 the Supreme Court recalled Vanashakti, reviving post-facto clearances. The NGT is weakened by vacancies.
- Courts as a partial brake. The Supreme Court’s interim order of 19 February 2024 kept the Godavarman test alive, but judicial governance is episodic and cannot supervise implementation.
Conclusion
India’s movements authored its environmental governance: its statutes, forums, participatory rights and legal doctrine. The state still operates that machinery and has been shifting discretion back to the executive. Whether the architecture survives depends on the same mobilisation that built it.