Constitutionalising River Restoration: The Jojari River Case, Limits on Stays of NGT Orders, and the High‑Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee

1. Introduction

The decision in In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan, 2025 INSC 1341, is a major addition to Indian environmental and constitutional jurisprudence. It concerns catastrophic pollution of a linked river system in western Rajasthan:

• River Jojari – flowing through Jodhpur;
• River Bandi – passing through Pali; and
• River Luni – traversing Balotra and further west.

These rivers, heavily contaminated by textile dyeing, steel industries and municipal sewage, serve as lifelines for nearly two million people, besides supporting livestock, agriculture and a fragile arid-zone ecosystem.

The Supreme Court initiated the matter suo motu (on its own motion) under Article 32 after a documentary titled “2 Million Lives at Risk | India’s Deadliest River | Marudhara | Jojari | Rajasthan” exposed widespread contamination and official inaction. Parallelly, several statutory appeals under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 challenging a detailed order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated 25 February 2022 were pending before the Court.

This judgment does three things of lasting importance:

1. Re‑anchors the crisis firmly in the constitutional right to life and a healthy environment under Article 21, treating the river pollution as a direct constitutional injury, not a mere regulatory failing.
2. Clarifies and effectively limits the scope of the Supreme Court’s own previous interim stay on the NGT’s order by reviving all substantive remedial directions, holding that a stay cannot be misread as a licence for inaction.
3. Constitutes a High‑Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee (HLEOC) with a retired High Court Judge as Chairperson and wide monitoring, fact‑finding and implementation powers, thereby entrenching a structural, ecosystem‑wide remedial mechanism for river restoration.

The judgment thus creates a precedent in two dimensions:

• On the doctrinal plane, by strengthening the idea that large‑scale, long‑term environmental degradation is a justiciable and remediable constitutional wrong, even where statutory mechanisms (like the NGT) already exist.
• On the remedial and institutional plane, by designing an ecosystem‑level oversight body with powers to supervise the implementation of NGT directions, integrate expert scientific inputs, and ensure accountability, including personal financial liability for erring officials and polluters.

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Background and Procedural History

• Multiple writ petitions on pollution of Jojari, Bandi and Luni rivers were originally filed before the Rajasthan High Court and then transferred to the NGT, which consolidated them and constituted a Special Task Force and later three monitoring committees headed by Justice P.C. Tatia (retd.).
• The P.C. Tatia Committee gave detailed interim (20 April 2021) and final (22 July 2021) reports, recommending robust regulatory, infrastructural and enforcement measures.
• On 25 February 2022, the NGT passed a final order directing:
  • Implementation of the Committee’s recommendations;
  • Strict enforcement to prevent discharge of untreated effluent and sewage;
  • Imposition of environmental compensation on RIICO and local bodies; and
  • Preparation and implementation of a remediation plan.
• RIICO and several municipal bodies filed appeals before the Supreme Court. By interim orders in 2022, the Court granted a stay on the NGT order.
• In September 2025, after the documentary surfaced, the Supreme Court:
  • Registered a suo motu writ petition on Jojari pollution;
  • Recognised commonality of issues and tagged the NGT appeals with the suo motu matter (de‑tagging one unrelated appeal); and
  • Sought a status report from Rajasthan.

The State’s status report (15 November 2025) acknowledged:

• The seriousness of the pollution problem;
• Recent enforcement efforts (closure of non‑compliant units, removal of bypass lines, demolition of illegal units, inspection drives);
• Severe gaps between sewage/effluent generation and treatment capacity of CETPs and STPs in Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra; and
• Engagement of premier institutions (IIT Jodhpur, MNIT Jaipur, MBM Engineering College, BITS Pilani) to audit treatment plants and prepare short‑ and long‑term action plans.

2.2 Core Constitutional Findings

The Court finds that:

• The prolonged pollution of the river system constitutes a “direct constitutional injury”, undermining the right to life, health, safe water, ecological balance and dignity under Article 21, read with Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g).
• The State’s years of regulatory apathy and failure to expand and effectively operate treatment infrastructure amount to a gross dereliction of constitutional duty.
• Merely belated, post‑litigation action cannot be treated as an adequate response; sustained, structural and scientifically informed intervention is necessary.

2.3 Modification of the Supreme Court’s Earlier Stay on the NGT Order

Recognising that its own stay order had in effect paralysed the implementation of the NGT’s remedial framework, and had been misused as an excuse for inaction, the Court:

• Modifies and clarifies the stay on the NGT’s order of 25 February 2022.
• Lifts the stay entirely on all substantive remedial, regulatory and preventive directions of the NGT.
• Continues the stay only on:
  • The adverse remarks against RIICO and other authorities/corporations; and
  • The specific direction imposing Rs. 2 crore environmental compensation on each of them.
• Records that RIICO and the municipal bodies have no objection to the remedial directions being implemented; they only seek reconsideration of remarks and direct liabilities.

2.4 Constitution of the High‑Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee

To address systemic and long‑standing failures, the Court creates a High‑Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee (HLEOC), headed by:

• Chairperson: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha (Retd.), former Judge, Rajasthan High Court;
• Legal Member: Pankaj Sharma, Advocate; and
• Technical Expert: To be nominated by the Chairperson (expert in water management/environmental engineering).

The Committee also incorporates key governmental and regulatory stakeholders:

• Additional Chief Secretary, Environment & Climate Change, Rajasthan;
• Senior officers from Urban Development and Local Self Government departments;
• Member Secretaries of CPCB and RSPCB;
• Managing Director, RIICO;
• Director, RUIDP; and
• Collectors of Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra.

The HLEOC’s terms of reference are extensive. In essence, it must:

• Ensure full implementation of the NGT order and P.C. Tatia Committee recommendations;
• Prepare a time‑bound River Restoration and Rejuvenation Blueprint for the Jojari‑Bandi‑Luni system;
• Map and monitor all legal and illegal discharge points into the rivers;
• Oversee the auditing and performance of CETPs, STPs, SCADA systems, oxidation ponds and industrial primary treatment plants;
• Integrate all short‑ and long‑term plans and technical reports from IITs, NITs and other expert institutions;
• Recommend infrastructure augmentation (new CETPs/STPs, ZLD technologies, additional pipelines);
• Identify non‑compliant industries and officers and recommend:
  • disciplinary action,
  • prosecution, and
  • recovery of environmental compensation under the Polluter Pays principle;
• Ensure public transparency (quarterly water quality data, local community engagement); and
• Submit status reports to the Supreme Court every eight weeks.

2.5 Administrative & Financial Directions

The Court directs that:

• Rajasthan must provide full logistical support: office, staff (including an RAS officer as Registrar/Nodal Officer), infrastructure and security for the Committee.
• The Chairperson will receive an honorarium of Rs. 5,00,000 per month, and the assisting lawyer Rs. 1,00,000 per month, plus travel allowances.
• All costs of the Committee—honorarium, operations, inspections—shall be initially borne by the State, but are recoverable from erring officials/departments and polluting industries found responsible for violations.

The matter is kept pending, with the first Committee status report due by 27 February 2026, reflecting a continuing mandamus approach.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court situates its reasoning within a well‑developed line of environmental rights jurisprudence, citing four important decisions.

3.1.1 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598

In Subhash Kumar, the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy pollution‑free water and air. The present judgment quotes the core passage:

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life… a citizen has right to have recourse to Art. 32…”

This precedent is used to justify:

• the invocation of suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32; and
• the characterisation of river pollution as a prima facie violation of Article 21, not just a statutory infraction.

3.1.2 Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577

Virender Gaur recognised that hygienic environment is an integral facet of the right to healthy life, and that the State and municipalities have an imperative constitutional duty to protect and improve both man‑made and natural environment.

By quoting this case, the Court:

• emphasises the obligatory nature of environmental protection; and
• frames the failure of municipal bodies and State agencies in Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra as a breach of constitutional duty, not merely of administrative prudence.

3.1.3 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213

In Kamal Nath, the Court had read Articles 48A and 51A(g) (Directive Principle and Fundamental Duty) in conjunction with Article 21, holding that disturbance of basic environmental elements like air, water and soil is hazardous to life.

This is used in the present case to:

• underline that Articles 48A (State’s duty to protect and improve the environment) and 51A(g) (citizen’s duty to protect nature) are not “abstract exhortations” but carry interpretive force when reading Article 21;
• justify treating massive river pollution as a constitutional wrong that must be urgently remedied.

3.1.4 A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62

In Nayudu, the Court identified environmental rights as “third generation” or solidarity rights. The present judgment quotes that articulation to:

• place the right to a healthy environment within a modern human rights framework that goes beyond classical civil and political rights;
• stress that such collective rights demand collective, ecosystem‑scale remedies, such as the oversight committee model adopted here.

3.1.5 Broader Jurisprudential Continuity

Although not expressly cited, the judgment’s references to:

• precautionary principle,
• sustainable development, and
• inter‑generational equity

(see ¶19) resonate with earlier landmark cases like Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action. The Court uses these principles to justify:

• a shift from ad hoc, piecemeal measures to a long‑term, scientifically informed restoration strategy;
• the framing of remedial obligations not just for present residents but for future generations who depend on the river system.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 From Regulatory Breach to Constitutional Injury

A key conceptual move is the Court’s insistence that the case involves a “direct constitutional injury” (¶3, ¶10, ¶28), not only:

• violations of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,
• failures under the NGT Act, or
• administrative negligence.

By explicitly linking:

• contaminated rivers, soil and groundwater;
• health impacts and loss of livelihood; and
• destruction of local ecology

to Article 21, the Court elevates the dispute from environmental regulation to the core of fundamental rights protection. This doctrinal framing justifies:

• exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32;
• the creation of an extra‑statutory remedial structure (the HLEOC) that supplements, rather than replaces, statutory regulators; and
• a continuing mandamus model with periodic reporting and long‑term oversight.

3.2.2 Critique of State Inaction and Misuse of the Stay

The reasoning is particularly sharp in its criticism of executive inaction:

• It notes that the State “woke up from its slumber” only after the Court’s suo motu cognizance (¶8).
• It highlights that installed treatment capacity is grossly inadequate relative to daily effluent generation, with CETPs and STPs both under‑designed and under‑utilised (¶9).
• It condemns the manner in which the Supreme Court’s own interim stay on the NGT’s order was treated as a justification for doing nothing, instead of prompting the State to seek modification/clarification (¶18).

This leads to two important normative clarifications:

1. An interim stay on environmental orders does not suspend the State’s underlying constitutional and statutory duties to prevent pollution.
2. Passive reliance on such a stay, without seeking modification in light of continuing harm, is itself a form of unconstitutional inaction.

3.2.3 Reinstating the NGT’s Remedial Framework

The Court notes that the NGT order was based on:

• extensive fact‑finding;
• expert monitoring by the P.C. Tatia Committee; and
• a comprehensive set of directions aimed at:
  • improving CETP/STP performance,
  • closing non‑compliant units, and
  • developing a remediation plan funded by environmental compensation.

By reviving all substantive NGT directions (¶20–21, ¶27(A)–(B)), the Court:

• demonstrates deference to the specialised role of the NGT in environmental adjudication;
• avoids duplication of fact‑finding; and
• preserves its own appellate role on contested issues like attribution of compensation and adverse remarks.

This is an important institutional design choice: the Supreme Court uses the NGT’s work as the substantive blueprint, and adds a new layer of oversight (HLEOC) to ensure that the blueprint is implemented effectively.

3.2.4 Structural Remedy: The High‑Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee

The most distinctive aspect of the judgment is the creation of the HLEOC. From a legal‑theoretical standpoint, this embodies several trends:

• Structural injunction / continuing mandamus: Instead of issuing a one‑time set of directions, the Court creates a body that will:
  • diagnose ongoing failures,
  • coordinate stakeholders, and
  • report back periodically.
• Multi‑stakeholder governance: The Committee cuts across:
  • judicial authority (retired judge chairing);
  • executive departments (Environment, Urban Development, Local Self Government, RIICO, RUIDP);
  • regulators (CPCB, RSPCB); and
  • local administrations (District Collectors).
• Evidence‑based decision‑making: The HLEOC is mandated to embed input from IITs, NITs and engineering colleges, translating technical audits and feasibility studies into actionable regulatory and infrastructural decisions (¶23–24, ¶24(F)–(H)).

Notably, the Committee is given substantial de facto powers:

• To call for records and issue directions to State and local bodies (¶24(K));
• To recommend prosecutions, disciplinary action and recovery of compensation (¶24(I)); and
• To seek assistance from national research institutions like NEERI (¶24(K)).

While these powers are formally recommendatory (they operate within the existing statutory framework of CPCB/RSPCB and executive departments), the repeated linking of non‑compliance with:

• personal accountability before the Supreme Court (¶27(I)); and
• recovery of Committee expenses and remediation costs (¶26, ¶61)

gives these recommendations significant coercive force.

3.2.5 Personal and Financial Accountability

A particularly notable aspect is the explicit direction that:

“Expenditure incurred towards the functioning of the Committee including the payment of honorarium, professional expenses, operational expenses and any other ancillary expenses shall be recoverable from the concerned erring officials or departments, and from the industries or industrial units found to be responsible for violations…” (¶26, ¶61)

This goes beyond the typical Polluter Pays principle applied to private entities, extending:

• financial consequences to State departments and, potentially, individual officials whose dereliction causes or perpetuates pollution;
• a strong incentive for bureaucratic compliance and proactive enforcement; and
• a hybrid liability model where:
  • industries pay for environmental damage; and
  • the State apparatus bears financial consequences for regulatory failure.

3.3 Impact and Future Implications

3.3.1 For Environmental Governance and NGT Orders

The judgment sends a clear signal about the handling of environmental orders:

• Interim stays on NGT orders must be narrowly interpreted; they do not suspend general environmental obligations or bar the State from seeking appropriate modifications when ongoing harm persists.
• States and statutory bodies can no longer credibly use a Supreme Court stay as a shield for further inaction in the face of continuing environmental damage.
• In future environmental appeals from NGT, governments may be expected to:
  • clarify precisely what part of NGT’s orders they challenge (e.g., compensation, factual findings) rather than resist the entire remedial architecture;
  • continue to implement unchallenged and un‑stayed parts of orders.

3.3.2 For State Liability and Administrative Accountability

Beyond the specific case, the approach could influence:

• Internal accountability mechanisms within State departments, given the possibility of:
  • personal consequences for officers, and
  • departmental liability for oversight failures.
• Design of future structural remedies in large‑scale environmental harms (e.g., air pollution, groundwater contamination), where courts may:
  • rely on technical bodies and NGT findings; and
  • create multi‑stakeholder oversight committees with periodic reporting.

3.3.3 For River‑System and Ecosystem Litigation

The judgment’s ecosystem‑wide approach—treating Jojari, Bandi and Luni as an integrated “river system”—has several implications:

• Recognition that environmental harms are rarely confined to a single administrative unit or river stretch; they propagate downstream through connected ecosystems.
• Future litigation may be framed river‑basin wise, rather than city‑wise or industry‑cluster wise, necessitating:
  • joint responsibility across multiple districts and agencies; and
  • integrated planning of sewage, industrial effluent and groundwater use.

3.3.4 For Fundamental Rights Discourse

By reiterating that the right to a healthy environment is both:

• a dimension of Article 21, and
• a “third generation” right (per Nayudu),

the judgment strengthens the trend of treating environmental protection as:

• a precondition for the enjoyment of other civil, political and socio‑economic rights; and
• a basis for robust, structural remedies that may last for years and involve active court supervision.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Suo Motu Writ Petition

Suo motu means “on its own motion”. Here, the Supreme Court:

• did not wait for an affected party to file a case;
• treated a media documentary as sufficient trigger; and
• initiated proceedings to protect fundamental rights under Article 32.

4.2 Article 21 and the Right to a Healthy Environment

Article 21 says: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Courts have interpreted:

• “life” to mean more than mere survival – it includes quality of life;
• a life with dignity requires:
  • clean air and water,
  • healthy surroundings, and
  • ecological balance.

4.3 Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g)

• Article 47 – Directs the State to improve public health and nutrition.
• Article 48A – Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
• Article 51A(g) – Makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.

Though some of these are in the Directive Principles/Fundamental Duties chapter, the Court uses them to interpret Article 21, making environmental protection a constitutional necessity, not an optional policy choice.

4.4 NGT, Appeals, and Interim Stay

• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is a specialised environmental court with technical members, created to adjudicate environmental disputes swiftly.
• Its orders can be challenged before the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act.
• An interim stay by the Supreme Court temporarily halts enforcement of some or all parts of an NGT order, until final decision on the appeal.

This judgment clarifies that such a stay:

• does not wipe out the State’s ongoing duties under other environmental laws and the Constitution; and
• should not be treated as a blanket exemption from remedial action.

4.5 CETP, STP, SCADA, and ZLD

• CETP (Common Effluent Treatment Plant) – A central facility where multiple industries send their effluents for collective treatment before discharge or reuse.
• STP (Sewage Treatment Plant) – A plant that treats municipal/domestic sewage to remove contaminants before discharge or reuse.
• SCADA (Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition) – A monitoring system that continuously records flow and quality parameters of effluents, often with:
  • real‑time data transmission; and
  • automatic cut‑off if effluents exceed permitted levels.
• ZLD (Zero Liquid Discharge) – A technology/policy that aims to ensure that no untreated liquid effluent is discharged outside the industrial premises; instead it is:
  • treated,
  • reused in processes, and
  • residues managed as solid waste.

4.6 Structural Remedy and Continuing Mandamus

Instead of giving a one‑time order, the Court:

• creates a permanent committee (HLEOC) to monitor, supervise and guide implementation;
• keeps the case pending; and
• requires periodic status reports (every eight weeks).

This is called a structural remedy or continuing mandamus—a tool used for complex, long‑term problems (environment, prison conditions, institutional reform), where:

• instant fixes are impossible; and
• sustained judicial oversight is considered necessary.

5. Conclusion: Significance of the Judgment

The decision in In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan is a significant milestone in Indian environmental law and constitutional adjudication. Its key contributions can be distilled as follows:

1. Reaffirmation and Deepening of Environmental Rights
   The judgment strongly reaffirms that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment. It frames the Jojari‑Bandi‑Luni disaster as a constitutional breach, not just a regulatory lapse, and connects environmental degradation directly to violations of dignity, health, safe water and livelihood.
2. Clarifying the Limits of Stays on Environmental Orders
   By modifying its own stay order and reviving all substantive NGT directions, the Court clarifies that:
   • interim stays must not be misinterpreted as disabling environmental protection; and
   • States remain under a continuous obligation to address environmental harm, irrespective of pending appeals.
   This is an important doctrinal and practical safeguard against paralysis by litigation.
3. Innovative Institutional Design: The Ecosystem Oversight Committee
   The creation of the High‑Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee represents a robust, ecosystem‑scale response:
   • integrating judiciary, executive, regulators, local administration and scientific expertise;
   • tasked with mapping, monitoring, planning and enforcing river restoration; and
   • empowered to recommend enforcement, including prosecutions and compensation.
   This model can inform future structural solutions in other complex environmental crises.
4. Personal and Financial Accountability for Environmental Governance
   By allowing recovery of the Committee’s expenses and remediation costs from polluting industries and erring officials/departments, the Court moves towards a more granular accountability regime where:
   • industries pay for pollution they cause; and
   • public authorities bear tangible consequences for failure to regulate.
5. Embedding Science, Transparency and Community Voice
   The judgment insists that:
   • technical institutions produce audits and action plans;
   • SCADA systems and online monitoring ensure real‑time transparency;
   • water quality data be published; and
   • Gram Panchayats and local communities be actively engaged.
   This shifts environmental governance towards a more informed, participatory and data‑driven model.

Ultimately, the judgment underscores that when environmental degradation reaches the scale documented in the Jojari‑Bandi‑Luni system, the matter transcends conventional pollution control and becomes a direct affront to the constitutional promise of life with dignity. By re‑activating the NGT’s remedial framework, installing a powerful oversight mechanism, and anchoring all of this in fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has laid down a template for future responses to large‑scale ecological crises across India.