Analysis

This third part of a careful and exhaustive legal analysis looks at the environmental jurisprudence of the Himalayan High Courts over the last decade that reveals an unsettling paradox: the vocabulary of ecological protection has never been richer, yet the physical landscape has never been more legally vulnerable. The courts of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh have masterfully preserved the text of environmental law while pronouncing judgements that blunt its teeth.

Union tells Court those sent to Bangladesh will be brought back and their citizenship claims examined in India; clarifies decision is confined to the exceptional facts of the case

The author academic exposes the propaganda in what he terms as the “Hindutva Hoax of Vegetarian Hinduism”

Court holds allegations relating to cattle transportation and offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act concern “law and order” at best, and do not justify preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act

Court says K.A. Najeeb cannot be reduced either to a “mathematical formula” mandating bail solely due to delay or to a hollow constitutional safeguard overridden entirely by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA

The judgment restores the constitutional framework laid down in KA Najeeb and cautions against treating anti-terror bail restrictions as a basis for indefinite pre-trial detention

Part II turns its attention to Western India: Mumbai, the rest of Maharashtra, and the long shadow of the Western Ghats where from sound coastal-zone jurisprudence, the High Court has been asked to, and has, permitted successive ‘infrastructure’ projects that have touched coasts, mangroves and the urban forest.

The protests that paralysed Noida’s industrial belt in April 2026 exposed not only worsening labour conditions but also the growing tendency of the state to treat democratic labour mobilisation as a law-and-order problem