Kancha Gachibowli vs Taj Trapezium Case: Are Courts Using Double Standards?

 In Kancha Gachibowli Welfare Society v. State of Telangana,

the High Court took suo motu cognizance of rampant illegal construction on lakebeds and Full Tank Levels (FTL) in and around Hyderabad. The encroachments were in violation of environmental laws and urban planning statutes.

The Court remarked:

"The destruction of lakes is not just a municipal failure; it is a betrayal of public trust by officers who were bound to protect these commons.

 But in, Taj Trapezium case, the Judiciary applied a different standard. While it is true that the Kancha Gachibowli matter was adjudicated by a High Court and the Taj Trapezium case by the Supreme Court, this distinction in judicial hierarchy should not translate into a disparity in standards of accountability.

The Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) is an ecologically sensitive area notified under a Supreme Court judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1996) 4 SCC 351]. The court has been monitoring pollution around the Taj Mahal since the 1990s.

On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court imposed fines of ₹25,000 each on three individuals for unauthorised constructions and pollution in violation of earlier orders.

It held that:

“Despite repeated directions, certain individuals continue to violate the sanctity of the Trapezium Zone. Such violations must attract personal liability.”

There was no mention of state responsibility, despite a long history of ineffective enforcement by the Agra Development Authority (ADA) and Pollution Control Boards.

No contempt proceedings or warnings were issued to state authorities who are supposed to enforce the TTZ restrictions.

Courts also apply the public trust doctrine, polluter pays principle, and precautionary principle — doctrines that apply not just to citizens, but also to public authorities but why I this selective enforcement of liability when both private actors and public officials must be held accountable when they fail the environment. Courts must ensure that the state authorities are not shielded from liability simply because they are enforcers. When enforcers become abettors – whether through neglect, delay or design, failure to punish them amounts to institutional impunity.