Legal Reforms or Legal Gaps? India’s Struggle with Sustainability

India has made several public commitments to sustainability and environmental protection, both on national and global stages. It has pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2070, expand renewable energy targets, and align corporate behavior with ESG standards. On paper, the direction seems progressive and aligned with global climate goals. 

However, the legal framework underpinning these commitments tells a different story. Most environmental laws in India were designed decades ago, and their revisions over time have largely responded to emerging issues rather than anticipating them. While new policies are introduced frequently, many lack long-term vision or are diluted in implementation. Instead of shaping future-ready, enforceable frameworks, India’s environmental legislation often focuses on damage control once a crisis has already surfaced. 

In parallel, economic and industrial priorities are driving key reforms. Laws meant to regulate environmental impact are increasingly seen as tools for enabling project clearance rather than enforcing ecological safeguards. Loopholes, exemptions, and administrative discretion have weakened core protections in many sectors, from forests to coastal zones. 

This dissonance—between ambitious green goals and a slow-moving, reactive legal system—creates a gap India must address urgently. Sustainability is not just a matter of policy announcements; it depends on whether the legal system is capable of translating intentions into enforceable, lasting action. 

India has positioned itself as a global voice for climate justice and sustainable development. At COP26 in Glasgow, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the “Panchamrit” commitments — five key climate targets — including achieving net-zero emissions by 2070, reducing projected carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes by 2030, and meeting 50% of energy needs through renewables by 2030. 

On the ESG front, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has mandated the top 1000 listed companies to file a Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR). This was introduced to integrate sustainability considerations into corporate governance, aiming to push transparency and ESG accountability in the private sector. 

However, on the ground, these commitments run into a stubborn wall of domestic regulatory inertia. Many infrastructure and energy projects continue to be cleared with minimal environmental impact assessment. The EIA Notification 2020 — intended to reform the process — was widely criticized for reducing public participation, legitimizing post-facto environmental clearances, and prioritizing ease of business over ecological accountability. 

A closer look at forest conservation reveals a similar contradiction. Amendments to the Forest Conservation Act in 2023 expanded the list of activities that could bypass forest clearance processes, especially in border areas or for strategic projects. While such flexibility is often justified in the name of development or national security, it also sets a precedent of prioritizing economic goals over ecological balance. 

Moreover, India’s legal institutions lack the capacity and independence needed for sustained environmental enforcement. Pollution control boards at both central and state levels are often under-resourced and politically influenced. Penalties for environmental violations are rarely proportionate or dissuasive. Judicial activism has filled some gaps — particularly through the National Green Tribunal (NGT) — but courts alone cannot substitute for a robust legislative and executive framework. 

In essence, while India’s global sustainability positioning is strong, its domestic legal architecture struggles to match the same ambition. This divergence creates a dangerous illusion — that sustainability is being addressed when, in many cases, it’s being deferred or diluted. 

In the past few years, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards have become the corporate world's new currency — a signal of responsibility and future-readiness. Indian companies, especially large, listed firms, are rushing to integrate ESG language into their annual reports, marketing, and investment decks. But beneath the surface, much of this remains performative. 

The Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR), made mandatory by SEBI, was intended to formalize ESG disclosures. Yet, the framework still relies heavily on self-reporting. There is no independent ESG audit mechanism. Metrics are often cherry-picked or vaguely worded. Many companies highlight green initiatives — like tree plantations or solar panel installations — while continuing high-pollution practices elsewhere in the value chain. 

This inconsistency is rarely challenged. Unlike financial reporting, ESG disclosures don’t yet have a culture of whistleblowing, investigative journalism, or shareholder activism in India. This allows companies to pursue ESG as a branding exercise rather than a binding ethical commitment. 

The problem also lies in how ESG is understood. For many Indian firms, “E” is limited to carbon footprint, “S” to CSR donations, and “G” to the existence of an ethics policy. Deep integration — such as redesigning supply chains for sustainability, reforming boardroom practices to reflect environmental accountability, or conducting lifecycle assessments — remains rare. 

Worse, corporate lobbying often influences regulatory rollbacks. Industry bodies have been known to pressure the government for relaxed environmental norms under the pretext of “ease of doing business.” This includes lobbying against stricter emissions regulations, opposing environmental liability clauses, or seeking exemptions for polluting industries under the guise of “strategic importance.” 

Even green financing is not immune to manipulation. Several infrastructure projects labeled as “green bonds” include activities with questionable environmental impact — such as large-scale hydroelectric dams or smart city projects that involve massive land acquisition and tree-felling. 

Thus, while ESG is gaining visibility in India’s boardrooms, its legal and ethical grounding remains shaky. The absence of strong regulatory teeth means ESG can easily become a shield rather than a mirror — helping companies appear sustainable without making real sacrifices. 

India’s environmental regulation framework is a labyrinth of overlapping laws, often marked by ambiguity and inconsistency. A company in India today must navigate an intricate web of national and state laws, regulations, and policies on environmental protection. This complexity makes it difficult for businesses to understand their legal obligations clearly, let alone follow them consistently. 

The primary regulations are extensive, including the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, the Environment Protection Act, and newer provisions like the National Clean Energy Fund. Each of these laws aims to protect specific aspects of the environment but often conflict or overlap with one another. The situation becomes even more complicated when state laws come into play, which may impose stricter, local guidelines or provide exemptions that override national norms. 

This redundancy and inconsistency create a legal environment where compliance becomes not just a matter of meeting requirements but deciphering them. For instance, while the National Environmental Policy (NEP) stresses “environmental sustainability,” companies still routinely face contradictory orders from the Pollution Control Boards or environmental tribunals, which vary greatly by jurisdiction. 

Worse, environmental governance in India suffers from slow implementation. While new environmental laws and amendments are passed with much fanfare, their enforcement often falls short due to the absence of robust monitoring systems and a backlog in environmental litigation. A case in point is the implementation of the Air Quality Index (AQI) in cities like Delhi, where despite widespread awareness of pollution’s health impacts, enforcement of air quality norms remains an uphill task. 

In addition, India’s judicial system, though progressive in some respects, is slow to respond to the pressing needs of sustainability. Environmental cases are often tied up in courts for years before reaching a conclusion, with delays creating a significant gap between legal action and its impact. This leaves businesses operating in a state of legal uncertainty, and in some cases, they are able to bypass regulatory oversight due to procedural loopholes or a lack of enforcement. 

Moreover, the involvement of multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities often leads to regulatory capture — where powerful industries can influence regulations to favor their operations. Whether it’s the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), competing interests sometimes allow polluting industries to exploit regulatory gaps or obtain permissions that contradict environmental sustainability objectives. 

The net result is a regulatory system that, rather than driving sustainability, allows companies to take advantage of its weaknesses to escape meaningful accountability. The lack of clarity and the uncoordinated enforcement of laws means that many businesses operate with a significant degree of environmental impunity. 

India’s legal framework for environmental protection, though well-intentioned, is riddled with enforcement gaps and accountability failures that prevent its real impact. While the country has introduced some of the most progressive environmental laws in the world, the challenge lies in the implementation of these laws on the ground. The lack of a robust enforcement mechanism undermines the intended outcomes, leaving sustainability objectives often unrealized. 

One of the core issues is the absence of effective monitoring and regulatory compliance. While there are frameworks like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) that are supposed to oversee environmental violations, these institutions are underfunded, understaffed, and often overwhelmed with cases. The result is a lack of real-time monitoring, making it difficult to ensure that businesses adhere to environmental regulations. In cases where violations do come to light, the penalties for non-compliance are often not stringent enough to act as a deterrent. Many companies view environmental fines as just another cost of doing business, rather than a genuine disincentive to harm the environment. 

Another significant loophole is the weak implementation of the "Polluter Pays Principle," a key tenet of environmental law globally. This principle, which holds that those who cause environmental damage should bear the costs of remediation, is often disregarded in India. In cases involving industrial pollution, companies are rarely held accountable for the long-term damage they cause, such as the contamination of water resources or soil degradation. Even when compensation is ordered, it is either delayed or too small to cover the actual cost of the environmental damage. This creates a culture of impunity, where large corporations are able to externalize the true cost of their operations, often at the expense of local communities and ecosystems. 

India’s land acquisition laws have also come under scrutiny for their lack of enforcement in the context of sustainable land use. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act (2013) was meant to address concerns regarding displacement due to infrastructure projects, but its implementation has been hampered by bureaucratic inefficiency. Often, industries exploit the vagueness of these laws to bypass land use regulations, leading to unplanned urban expansion that encroaches upon environmentally sensitive areas, including forests and wetlands. 

Furthermore, corruption within regulatory agencies has exacerbated these enforcement challenges. Due to the high level of bureaucracy, industries with enough financial clout can use political influence to circumvent the law. This means that businesses in certain sectors — particularly mining, construction, and energy — can often operate without proper environmental assessments or compliance checks, further eroding the system’s integrity. 

While there are attempts to streamline compliance through digitization and more proactive monitoring, these efforts have been slow and inconsistent. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, for instance, has been under review and scrutiny, with critics arguing that it is often rushed, undermining its effectiveness. In fact, many critical projects are given clearance without thorough environmental scrutiny, simply to avoid delays, thereby prioritizing economic growth over environmental considerations. 

In essence, the absence of strong enforcement mechanisms, combined with legal loopholes and institutional inefficiencies, results in weak accountability. Without swift and stringent consequences for environmental harm, businesses are unlikely to adopt sustainable practices. The failure of enforcement, therefore, not only stymies progress on sustainability goals but also undermines public trust in India’s environmental legal system. 

The influence of powerful industries on the policymaking and legislative process in India has long been a concern, especially when it comes to environmental and sustainability laws. In India’s economic and political landscape, where business interests are deeply intertwined with the political sphere, lobbying often leads to reforms being watered down or delayed, distorting the intent of legal measures designed to promote sustainability. This corporate influence poses a significant barrier to the effective implementation of green laws, leading to a system where environmental safeguards are secondary to economic growth. 

One of the clearest examples of this influence is in the energy sector, particularly in relation to coal mining and thermal power plants. Despite India’s ambitious renewable energy targets, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied aggressively to delay or dilute regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions. For example, the government has repeatedly delayed the implementation of stricter emission standards for thermal power plants, citing concerns about economic impact and job losses in the coal industry. This corporate pressure undermines the government's own climate goals and discourages companies from transitioning to greener alternatives. 

The construction and real estate sectors have also been at the forefront of lobbying efforts to preserve the status quo. Despite the recognition of construction as one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation — through deforestation, air pollution, and water wastage — industry players have successfully lobbied for less stringent regulations. For instance, while the Environmental Clearance process for large infrastructure projects is theoretically robust, developers often secure approvals through political influence, bypassing or delaying environmental assessments. This is especially problematic in urban planning, where rapid expansion into ecologically sensitive areas, like floodplains or wetlands, continues unchecked. 

In the case of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), lobbying efforts by powerful sectors such as the petroleum and natural gas industries have led to the exclusion of key environmentally impactful products from the GST’s highest tax bracket. The reduced tax burden allows industries that are among the highest polluters to continue their activities without facing significant economic disincentives. This has made it challenging to align the tax structure with sustainability goals, creating an economic environment that favors polluting industries over cleaner alternatives. 

Moreover, the implementation of labor law reforms — while critical for improving workers’ rights and benefits — has also been influenced by powerful corporate lobbying. The consolidation of labor codes, intended to make compliance easier and improve conditions for workers in the formal sector, has been met with opposition from businesses that fear increased operational costs. In some instances, the reforms have been modified or diluted to make them more business-friendly, often to the detriment of labor rights and, indirectly, environmental protections. 

Corporate lobbying is also a significant factor in the weak enforcement of regulations. Regulatory agencies, under pressure from industry representatives, sometimes overlook violations or delay investigations into corporate misconduct. This gives large corporations the leeway to continue practices that harm the environment, with little accountability. For instance, despite the establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), several large corporations continue to defy environmental norms with little consequence, suggesting that the NGT’s decisions are sometimes influenced by corporate interests. 

The power of lobbyists is not just limited to individual industries; it also extends to political lobbying at the national and state levels. Political parties, dependent on corporate funding, are often reluctant to introduce stringent environmental measures or, when they do, face intense lobbying efforts to water them down. This political-economic nexus ensures that laws which could drive significant environmental change remain weak and ineffective. 

Ultimately, the pervasive influence of lobbying represents a major roadblock in the fight for sustainable legal reform in India. As long as corporate interests are allowed to influence the legal framework to the detriment of sustainability, India’s legal system will continue to miss opportunities for environmental and social progress. 

Public awareness and civil society play a pivotal role in holding the legal and political systems accountable, especially when it comes to environmental sustainability. While India’s government has enacted several legal reforms aimed at fostering sustainable development, the true effectiveness of these reforms largely hinges on their enforcement and the extent to which the public engages in monitoring and challenging legal provisions. 

Historically, India's environmental laws have often faced challenges in implementation, due to weak enforcement mechanisms, bureaucratic inertia, and lack of political will. Here, the role of civil society becomes critical. Grassroots movements, environmental NGOs, and activist organizations serve as watchdogs, calling attention to violations of environmental laws and advocating for stronger, more effective reforms. Their efforts have often been instrumental in forcing the government and businesses to rethink policies that favor short-term economic gains at the cost of long-term sustainability. 

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established in 2010, is a notable example of how civil society pressure can drive legal action. Despite its creation as a specialized body for the fast-tracking of environmental cases, its success has largely been due to the active participation of civil society organizations, citizens, and environmental advocates. These groups frequently bring cases to the NGT, challenging government decisions that favor business interests over the environment. Through such engagements, civil society has helped push for more stringent environmental safeguards, as seen in the ban on single-use plastics or the order to stop illegal sand mining operations. 

Public awareness, particularly regarding environmental issues like pollution and climate change, has also been a significant driver of legal change. With increased media coverage and social media activism, citizens are more informed about environmental issues and the legal framework that governs them. Campaigns led by organizations like Greenpeace India, as well as digital platforms such as Change.org, have mobilized public opinion on key issues, putting pressure on the government to enforce stricter regulations. For instance, the public outcry over the pollution levels in Delhi has forced policymakers to implement the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) and adopt more stringent air quality standards. 

Moreover, the legal profession itself has seen a shift, with an increasing number of lawyers and law firms specializing in environmental law, climate justice, and sustainability. Legal professionals are now more likely to engage in pro bono work for public interest litigations (PILs) that challenge unsustainable practices. In some cases, these litigations have successfully led to landmark judgments. For example, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India ordered the closure of the Vedanta Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu due to its failure to comply with environmental norms, a decision driven by widespread protests and public interest lawsuits. 

In addition, public awareness campaigns around sustainable practices can help in reshaping consumer behavior, ultimately putting more pressure on businesses to align their practices with sustainability goals. Consumer activism has become a powerful tool for ensuring that companies adhere to environmental regulations, as demonstrated by the growing demand for sustainable products and services in various sectors, from fashion to food. This shift in consumer behavior not only forces businesses to reconsider their impact on the environment but also encourages policymakers to adopt more proactive approaches in regulating industries. 

However, despite these positive trends, challenges remain in terms of public engagement and legal accountability. Civil society organizations, especially those working in remote areas, often face threats, harassment, and intimidation by corporations or state actors with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Legal reforms intended to benefit the public often fail to make a difference in such contexts due to this persistent resistance. 

To strengthen the role of civil society and public awareness, it is crucial to ensure that citizens are not only informed about their rights but also empowered to take legal action when necessary. Increasing access to legal resources, simplifying the process of filing complaints, and offering more protection to whistleblowers are essential steps to enhance accountability in India’s legal system. Only when the public is actively involved in the implementation and oversight of sustainable reforms will India be able to achieve its long-term environmental goals. 

Looking ahead, India’s path toward integrating sustainability into its legal framework requires a shift from reactive to proactive governance. While recent reforms have shown some promise, India must move faster in creating a resilient legal structure that not only tackles immediate environmental concerns but also ensures long-term ecological and economic sustainability. To achieve this, the country must refine and adapt its laws to meet the challenges of climate change, resource depletion, and sustainable economic growth. 

One of the key steps toward building a more sustainable legal framework is incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies more explicitly into national and state policies. This means aligning legal provisions with India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, ensuring that every sector of the economy – from agriculture to energy to infrastructure – is governed by frameworks that prioritize sustainability. This would require integrating climate-resilient planning at the legislative level and ensuring that environmental laws evolve in response to new data, technologies, and scientific advancements. 

A significant challenge lies in the enforcement of existing regulations. Many of India’s current environmental laws are weakened by insufficient implementation and poor monitoring systems. For instance, the environmental clearances granted to projects often face delays, are prone to manipulation, or are issued without adequate scrutiny of their long-term ecological impact. A solution could lie in strengthening the institutional frameworks responsible for monitoring and enforcing environmental norms. The establishment of a centralized regulatory authority dedicated solely to environmental governance could help streamline the implementation process and ensure a more uniform application of policies across states. 

Another important facet of building a resilient legal framework is fostering a culture of compliance within businesses. While the government has made strides toward integrating environmental considerations into business regulations, such as through the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provisions and the push for sustainable business practices, the corporate sector must be incentivized to take proactive steps toward environmental stewardship. This could involve creating market-based mechanisms such as green bonds, tax incentives for sustainable investments, or mandating greater transparency in environmental reporting, which would encourage businesses to internalize environmental costs into their operations. 

Furthermore, India must continue to focus on social inclusivity within its sustainability framework. Environmental justice – ensuring that vulnerable communities, particularly those in rural or marginalized areas, are not disproportionately affected by environmental degradation – must remain a core focus. Strengthening legal protections for these groups, empowering them with the knowledge and resources to assert their rights, and ensuring that sustainable development is not just an urban privilege will be vital in achieving true environmental equity. 

Additionally, India can benefit from a more harmonized approach to environmental regulations, ensuring that there is coherence between national and state laws. Often, discrepancies between the two create confusion, delays, and loopholes that companies can exploit. A more coordinated legal framework could help overcome these challenges, providing businesses with clear guidelines while ensuring that the country’s sustainability goals are met. 

To build a resilient legal system that fosters sustainability, India must also invest in enhancing the education and training of legal professionals in environmental and sustainability laws. Law schools should incorporate climate law, environmental governance, and sustainability-focused modules into their curricula to equip future legal professionals with the tools necessary to navigate this evolving landscape. 

Finally, strengthening the role of technology and innovation will be essential in driving sustainability efforts. Legal reforms should encourage the use of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and remote sensing to monitor environmental compliance, track pollution, and ensure the integrity of legal processes. Integrating such innovations into the legal framework will not only increase efficiency but will also enable the country to address the complexities of modern environmental issues more effectively. 

In conclusion, while India has made commendable progress in addressing its sustainability challenges, the journey is far from over. The legal framework must evolve in tandem with the country’s growing environmental challenges and international obligations. By enhancing enforcement mechanisms, incentivizing business compliance, and promoting public participation, India can create a robust, forward-thinking legal system that supports sustainable development for generations to come.