Revision summary
Environmental pressure groups organise to change ecological decisions of State and firms. Awareness: Chipko, Silent Valley, CSE and climate networks. Policy: EPA, FRA, NGT, EIA contests, PESA and mining consent. Advocacy: Mehta cases, Godavarman, Niyamgiri, Narmada and later climate-rights litigation. Limits: urban bias versus FRA communities, science errors, FCRA chill; they are one constitutional voice, not the ministry.
Model answer
Introduction
Environmental pressure groups are organised publics that try to change what the State and firms do to land, air, water and species. They are interest groups with an ecological claim, from a Himalayan mahila mandal hugging trees to a Delhi think tank drafting an EIA comment. In India they have used yatra, science, and the writ petition more than the paid lobbyist’s dinner.
Body
Awareness
Chipko (Uttarakhand) and Appiko (Western Ghats) made forest felling a moral picture. Silent Valley taught a generation the word rainforest. CSE and Down to Earth, Kalpavriksh, and student climate networks translate IPCC into Hindi and municipal smog. Media-savvy groups now use AQI apps the way an older generation used a folk song. Awareness is not noise: it creates the constituency without which a ministry will not spend political capital.
Influencing policy
- Pressure changed statutes and notifications: the Wildlife (Protection) Act after early conservation lobbies; EPA 1986 after Bhopal; FRA 2006 after tribal and forest movements collided with fortress conservation; NGT Act 2010; coastal and EIA notifications (and the 2020 draft EIA fight, where comments and protests slowed a dilution). PESA and Gram Sabha consent in mining (Samata, Niyamgiri) are policy wins that began as local resistance plus lawyers. Groups sit on some expert appraisal and pollution control consultations — unevenly, but the door exists because they pushed it.
Advocacy
M.C. Mehta litigation (Ganga, Delhi gas, Taj, oleum) invented a style of continuing mandamus. T.N. Godavarman turned the Supreme Court into a forest regulator for years. Vellore, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, and later climate petitions (including the Court’s recognition of a right against climate harm in M.K. Ranjitsinh, 2024, in the bustard/overhead-line setting) show advocacy as law-making by judgment. Street advocacy — Narmada, POSCO, Sterlite, Great Nicobar debates — raises costs for a poorly done hearing.
- Limits: groups can be urban and species-first, slighting tribal livelihood (the old fortress-versus-FRA split). They can err on science. FCRA has shrunk some internationalised NGOs. The State may co-opt a famous face and ignore the Gram Sabha. Pressure groups are a voice in Article 19, not the Environment Ministry.
A mature Republic uses them as early warning, then decides with both ecology and equity on the table.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD G[Pressure groups] --> A[Awareness] G --> P[Policy FRA NGT EIA] G --> C[PIL NGT streets] C --> L[Law and consent]
Conclusion
Environmental pressure groups in India teach, lobby and sue. Chipko to NGT to Niyamgiri is a single craft with many tools. They work when they bring local fact to national law; they fail when they replace the village or the voter.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Inequality in the ownership pattern of resources is one of the major causes of poverty. Discuss in the context of 'paradox of poverty'
Next question in the 2025 paper (Q16). View answer →
-
Are all environmental groups NGOs?
No. Some are unions, student bodies, or village sanghams without an FCRA number. The pressure is the organised claim, not the registration.
-
Does PIL replace democracy?
It can overreach. It also fills a gap when regulators sleep. The cure is a working EIA and a hearing, not a ban on writs.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021. -
2025 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the nature of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. Briefly describe the powers and functions of the Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. -
2025 · Q6 · GS II · 10 marks
Women's social capital complements in advancing empowerment and gender equity. Explain. -
2025 · Q10 · GS II · 10 marks
"With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism." Elucidate. -
2025 · Q17 · GS II · 15 marks
"In contemporary development models, decision-making and problem-solving responsibilities are not located close to the source of information and execution defeating the objectives of development." Critically evaluate. -
2025 · Q18 · GS II · 15 marks
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has to address the challenges faced by children in the digital era. Examine the existing policies and suggest measures the Commission can initiate to tackle the issue. -
2024 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
"The duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not merely to ensure the legality of expenditure but also its propriety." Comment. -
2024 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks
Analyse the role of local bodies in providing good governance at local level and bring out the pros and cons of merging the rural local bodies with the urban local bodies.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the 'corrupt practices' for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute 'undue influence' and consequently a corrupt practice.
Representation of the People Act
Section 123 RPA lists corrupt practices for election petitions: bribery, undue influence, communal appeal, false statements, booth capturing and related heads. Undue influence is interference with the free exercise of an electoral right, not every unfair gain. ADR and PUCL made asset affidavits part of an informed vote; false disclosure can be litigated. A legislator’s unexplained wealth is primarily a Prevention of Corruption Act and ethics issue. It is not, by itself, undue influence under the 1951 Act unless tied to bribery or intimidation of electors.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.
Governance and Policy
Articles 323A and 323B create tribunals for mass specialised disputes; L. Chandra Kumar keeps High Court judicial review. The need is expertise and volume, not ouster of courts. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, abolished several appellate bodies and restated short tenure and a high minimum age. Madras Bar Association cases (2020–21) insisted on CJI-linked selection and real tenure for judicial members. Rationalisation reduced forums; it did not, by itself, produce independent or faster justice.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.