Listen to this article:

On March 12, 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi formally disposed of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985 – M.C. Mehta v Union of India. The bench simultaneously directed the Registry to register a fresh suo motu proceeding titled In Re: Issues of Air Pollution in the National Capital Region. On the face of it, it is a renumbering exercise to correct a statistical anomaly in the court’s pendency data. However, it marks the end of a 40-year constitutional experiment in judicial environmental governance.

Origins: The 1985 petition and the doctrine it generated

Mahesh Chander Mehta was an environmental lawyer who, in 1985, filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution arguing that vehicular and industrial pollution in Delhi had reached levels incompatible with the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. The case number was WP(C) 13029/1985. This specific petition was the Delhi air pollution and vehicular emissions case. Mehta filed several distinct PIL petitions in this period – on Ganga pollution, on the Taj Mahal and the Taj Trapezium Zone, and others – all of which carry his name but bear different writ petition numbers. Thursday’s disposal order was confined to WP(C) 13029/1985. The Ganga and Taj matters were not closed.

What distinguished the 1985 petition was not merely its subject matter but the procedural innovation it licensed. The Supreme Court found that the conventional writ of mandamus – a one-time command to a public authority to perform a duty – was structurally inadequate to address a problem as complex and continuous as urban air pollution. The executive had not just failed to act once; it had consistently failed to implement environmental law across administrations, and that failure was structural and ongoing. The court’s response was to evolve what scholars and the court itself now call the ‘continuing mandamus’: a writ remedy under which the bench issues directions periodically, retains jurisdiction indefinitely, and monitors implementation over years and decades.

It is important to note that the term ‘continuing mandamus’ was formally coined by the Supreme Court not in an environmental case but in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), the Jain Hawala case, where the court used it to monitor a stalled CBI investigation against high-profile individuals. The court described it as a new tool forged because of peculiar circumstances. The practice, however – keeping a case alive and issuing successive supervisory directions – had been operational in the M.C. Mehta matters and in the parallel T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad forestry case since the early 1990s. The legal architecture of continuing mandamus was, in effect, pioneered in environmental PIL before it acquired a formal name.

The constitutional grounding for this expansion ran through Article 21, read........

© The Wire