The Supreme Court of India, an institution built on a legacy of evidence-based interventions and expert-driven governance, appears to be charting a concerning new course. Recent proceedings in high-profile cases involving the management of stray dogs and the protection of the Aravalli hills suggest a departure from its own rigorous standards, raising alarms about judicial overreach and the sidelining of scientific analysis.
A Legacy of Disciplined Activism
To understand the gravity of this shift, one must recall the Court's historic role. In the decades following the Emergency, the Supreme Court reinvented itself as a proactive guardian of constitutional values. Faced with executive and legislative inertia, it pioneered tools like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and suo motu cognisance to address failures in governance.
Crucially, this activism was never arbitrary. In matters ranging from bonded labour and environmental degradation to public health crises, the Court consistently insisted on scientific, rational, and evidence-based decision-making. It regularly appointed independent expert committees and relied on neutral fact-finding bodies. This approach birthed foundational doctrines like the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle, establishing the Court not just as an adjudicator, but as a sentinel of reasoned constitutional morality.
The Unsettling Regression in Recent Cases
This formidable legacy now faces a test. A pattern is emerging where the Court's recent actions seem to bypass its own established methodology. The first sign appeared in the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India vs Vanashakti & Anr case. Here, the Court, in review proceedings, upheld government notifications allowing ex post facto environmental clearances. This move, as noted in Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's dissent, significantly diluted the precautionary principle, effectively legitimising environmental violations first and asking for remediation later.
The Aravalli hills case further exemplified this drift. The Court initially accepted a government-appointed committee's definition of the Aravalli range without independent expert verification, issuing sweeping directions. It later had to recall and stay its own order upon acknowledging the lack of a reliable, neutral scientific foundation. This episode highlighted a troubling willingness to rely uncritically on executive-provided material.
The Stray Dogs Case: A Stark Departure from Science
The most vivid illustration of this regression is the ongoing suo motu proceeding on stray dogs, initiated by the Supreme Court on July 28. The Court acted primarily on the basis of a newspaper report, bypassing the established protocol of first seeking comprehensive data or expert inputs.
More concerningly, the Court has issued a series of interim orders that function as final directives, all without a comprehensive hearing of key stakeholders. These excluded parties include animal welfare groups, municipal authorities, veterinarians, epidemiologists, and public health experts.
This approach sidesteps globally and nationally accepted scientific frameworks. Bodies like the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) endorse the Capture–Vaccinate–Sterilise–Release (CVSR) model, now codified in India's Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. Empirical evidence shows that indiscriminate removal or relocation of dogs destabilises ecosystems, increases aggression, and worsens public health outcomes like rabies control.
Conclusion: Guarding the Guardian's Rigour
The irony is profound. The institution that once demanded expert-driven solutions from the government now appears to substitute scientific analysis with judicial intuition. Interim orders passed without a full evidentiary foundation risk creating irreversible consequences—precisely what the Court's historical jurisprudence sought to prevent.
The core concern is not judicial activism per se, but judicial arbitrariness masquerading as urgency. In attempting to respond swiftly to public anxiety, the Supreme Court risks abandoning the methodological discipline that underpinned its greatest contributions. Its legitimacy was earned through a commitment to reason and constitutional morality, even when it countered popular sentiment. A retreat from these standards, as seen in these cases, threatens to erode that hard-earned institutional capital. For the Supreme Court to remain the sentinel on the qui vive, it must hold itself to the same rigorous standards of science, inclusive hearing, and reasoned deliberation that it once imposed upon the state.
