1. Suo motu proceedings concerning the environmental degradation and persistent industrial and sewage pollution affecting river systems and livelihoods, necessitating institutional intervention for remediation and compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan – Appellant
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2025, Civil Appeal Nos. 5517-5519 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 8748 of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 9057-9058 of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 9010-9011 of 2022
Decided On : 18-03-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Vyas, Adv. Mrs. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv. Princess Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Ms. Archna Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Udit Dediya, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Udit Dedhiya, Adv. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinay Kothari, Adv. Mr. Mehul Kothari, Adv. Mr. Divya Pratap Parmar, Adv. Ms. Akansha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rk Rajwanshi, Adv. Mr. Arpit Gupta, AOR Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, AOR Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv. Ms. Harshita Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv. Mr. Gs Awana, Adv. Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Pooja Chand Dwivedi, Adv. M/s Nma Law Chambers, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Ms. Arushi Rathore, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Vyas, Adv. Mrs. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Vyas, Adv. Mrs. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv. Princess Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Ms. Archna Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Udit Dediya, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Udit Dedhiya, Adv. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinay Kothari, Adv. Mr. Mehul Kothari, Adv. Mr. Divya Pratap Parmar, Adv. Ms. Akansha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rk Rajwanshi, Adv. Mr. Arpit Gupta, AOR Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, AOR Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv. Ms. Harshita Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv. Mr. Gs Awana, Adv. Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Pooja Chand Dwivedi, Adv. M/s Nma Law Chambers, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Ms. Arushi Rathore, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Vyas, Adv. Mrs. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sapna Bhardwaj, Adv.
The right to a pollution-free environment, including access to clean water, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, necessitating urgent state compliance in pollution control and restoration measures.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection - Jurisprudence addressing pollution and degradation of water bodies - Need for substantive regulatory directions for restoration processes - Constitution of High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee mandated to ensure oversight on river restoration and pollution control measures. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 55)
(B) Pollution Control - Systemic failures in treatment infrastructure and regulatory compliance highlighted; need for urgent, structured remedial actions mandated by the court. (Paras 32, 40, 44, 54)
(C) Fundamental Rights - Right to life includes access to clean water and a pollution-free environment. (Paras 52, 56)
Facts of the case:
Petition concerning severe degradation of the Jojari River due to unchecked industrial waste and sewage discharge by multiple industries, causing environmental harm and impacting local communities’ health and livelihoods. The Committee's findings highlighted significant infrastructural deficiencies in existing treatment systems and regulatory inaction by responsible authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Committee discovered widespread pollution and critically low performance in treatment facilities, with severe ecological and socioeconomic impacts documented, necessitating immediate intervention.
Issues: The court addressed the need to enhance compliance with pollution control norms, restore natural water flow, and provide clean drinking water to affected communities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental right to a healthy environment under Article 21 and held that the state must implement strict measures to ensure compliance with environmental norms and protect the river system.
Result: Intermediate directions issued for urgent remedial action and improvement in regulatory frameworks.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The Court confirmed the right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21 and directed strict state compliance with pollution control and restoration measures (!) (!) (!) . - The formation of a High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee with wide-ranging mandates to oversee restoration, identify pollution sources, supervise compliance, and recommend measures was upheld (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directed implementation of interim measures including enhanced oversight of CETPs, mandatory upgrades to Zero Liquid Discharge, stricter effluent monitoring, regulation of tanker discharge, restoration of the river’s natural course, and ensuring potable water supply to affected areas (!) (!) (!) (!) .
What is the scope and nature of the interim directions issued by the Supreme Court for the restoration of the Jojari River?
What are the core obligations imposed on the State of Rajasthan and its authorities under these directions?
What specific measures are mandated to ensure compliance with environmental norms and to address ongoing pollution of the river system?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Regulatory authorities and state entities contended regarding implementation, resource constraints, existing treatment capacities, and compliance burdens vs. claims of ongoing pollution and administrative inaction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The court found systematic administrative apathy, deliberate concealment of environmental violations, and ineffective regulatory enforcement, causing irreversible ecological destruction and impacting fundamental public rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 )
4. The right to access clean drinking water and a pollution-free environment is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21, creating an absolute obligation on the State. (Para 51 , 52 , 56 )
5. The Court mandated immediate implementation of comprehensive remediation directions, including establishment of specialized monitoring and enforcement mechanisms and restoration of affected water systems. (Para 55 )
6. What is the constitutional basis for judicial intervention in cases of environmental degradation?
The court held that access to clean water and a pollution-free environment are integral facets of the right to life under Article 21. Continued environmental degradation and administrative neglect infringe these fundamental rights, triggering the court's constitutional duty to enforce accountability and restoration. (Para 51 , 52 , 56 )
7. Can regulatory bodies be held accountable for persistent failure to enforce environmental standards?
Yes. The court found that systemic failure to monitor and enforce compliance, despite the existence of treatment infrastructure, constitutes a violation of public trust. Regulatory bodies must be held accountable through stringent enforcement measures, including potential disciplinary proceedings, when they fail to take timely preventive and remedial action. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 54 )
8. Does the concealment of environmental damage by regulated entities justify extraordinary judicial remedies?
Yes. Where entities engage in deliberate acts of concealment to mask pollution, such conduct undermines the rule of law. The court held that such actions necessitate the adoption of stringent measures, including the establishment of specialized courts and the application of the polluter pays principle to compel compliance. (Para 43 , 44 , 55 )
9. What measures may a court mandate to ensure the enforcement of environmental restoration?
A court may mandate the constitution of oversight committees, the deployment of technology-driven real-time monitoring systems, the closure of defaulting industrial units, and the creation of dedicated environmental restoration and compensation funds to ensure structural accountability and timely completion of remediation projects. (Para 33 , 55 )
ORDER :
1. This Court, vide order dated 21st November, 20251 [ In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan , 2025 SCC Online SC 2518] while taking note of the severe degradation and destruction of the Jojari River System, deemed it necessary to modify/clarify the order granting interim stay on the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal2 [Hereinafter, being referred to as “NGT”] vide final order dated 25th February, 2022. The Court held that the stay shall not operate so as to restrain the implementation of substantive remedial and regulatory directions issued by the NGT. However, it was clarified that the interim stay would continue to operate only in respect of the remarks made against Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation3 [For short “RIICO”] and other concerned authorities/corporations, as well as the direction imposing environmental compensation of Rs. 2 Crores upon them. These aspects were kept open for consideration at an appropriate stage, subject to an evaluation of the future conduct, actions and compliance demonstrated by the said authorities/corporations.
2. In furtherance thereof, and having regard to the scale of environmental harm, the prolonged inaction and the necessity of a coordinated, scientifically informed and accountable institutional framework, this Court deemed it appropriate to constitute a High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee4 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Committee”] under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha, Hon’ble (Retd.) Judge of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The constitution of the said Committee was considered imperative to enable effective oversight of the restoration of the river system and to ensure that remedial measures are implemented in a structured and sustained manner. The Committee was envisaged as a dedicated fact-finding, monitoring and implementation body tasked with identifying systemic deficiencies, supervising measures necessary to arrest further pollution, and formulating long-term strategies for reversal of the environmental damage already caused.
3. The mandate of the aforesaid Committee, as delineated by this Court, was wide-ranging and comprehensive. The Committee was entrusted with ensuring the time-bound implementation of the directions issued by the NGT vide final order dated 25th February, 2022; preparation of a scientific and actionable river restoration and rejuvenation blueprint; identification and mapping of pollution sources; and supervision of compliance by industrial units and municipal bodies. The Committee was further empowered to conduct audits and inspections, assess infrastructure gaps in treatment facilities, recommend augmentation measures, and enforce accountability by identifying erring entities and invoking the “Polluter Pays” principle. Additionally, the Committee was tasked with integrating technical inputs from expert institutions, facilitating real-time monitoring mechanisms, and ensuring community engagement through dissemination of water quality data and incorporation of local feedback.
4. The matter was thereafter directed to be listed on 27th February, 2026 for the purpose of receiving the first status report of the Committee, so as to enable this Court to assess the progress made and to issue further directions, if necessary.
5. In the hearing on 10th March, 2026, this Court noted that the Committee, constituted in pursuance of this Court’s order dated 21st November, 2025, had submitted a detailed status report. The status report had been systematically compartmentalized under various heads and, inter alia, contained an overview of the Luni River system; details of industries operating in the districts of Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra; particulars of the Common Effluent Treatment Plants5 [For short “CETP”] including their installed capacities and operational loads; and details of the Sewage Treatment Plants6 [For short “STP”] functioning in the
