Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-010043 – 2024 |
| Diary Number | 38099/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Environmental law; statutory interpretation of subordinate legislation under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; appellate jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that a plain, literal reading of the EIA 2006 Schedule shows that “General Conditions” apply only to those entries for which Column 5 expressly records their applicability; Items 8(a)&(b) contain no such provision and were thus always excluded. The judgment in Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary expressly recognized the intended decentralization for these items. Quashing of the 2014 Notification on procedural grounds by the Kerala High Court did not substantively alter the original EIA 2006 scheme nor revive GC by operation of law. A fresh clarificatory Notification dated 29.01.2025 (upheld by this Court) validly re-asserted the statutory position, while arbitrary exemptions for educational/industrial buildings were struck down. SEIAAs/SEACs, being expert bodies constituted under the EP Act, remain competent to appraise and grant clearances for building and township projects, including those within 5 km of sensitive areas, in line with sustainable development and delegated-legislation principles. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act by CREDAI, Godrej Properties and Sai Sahara Developers against an NGT order of 09.08.2024 which, relying on the Kerala HC’s quashing of the 2014 Notification, held that “General Conditions” under the EIA 2006 Notification apply to Items 8(a)&(b) and that all building, construction and township projects within 5 km of sensitive areas must be appraised centrally as Category A. The NGT directed MoEF&CC either to implement GC or issue a clarification. MoEF&CC issued a fresh Notification dated 29.01.2025 and OM dated 30.01.2025 reiterating that GC do not apply to Items 8(a)&(b). That Notification (apart from an arbitrary Note exempting certain building types) was upheld in Vanashakti v. Union of India (05.08.2025). |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | MoEF&CC, SEIAAs, SEACs and all subordinate environmental authorities administering the EIA 2006 Notification |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, NGT benches and other tribunals interpreting EIA regulations; real estate developers and environmental litigators |
| Overrules | NGT order dated 09.08.2024 to the extent it revived GC applicability to Items 8(a)&(b) by quashing the 2014 Notification |
| Distinguishes | One Earth One Life v. MoEF&CC (Kerala HC) – procedural quashing did not substantively alter EIA 2006 scheme beyond Kerala’s territorial limits |
| Follows | In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary – recognition of legislative intent to decentralize appraisal of building and township projects |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court confirms that Items 8(a) & 8(b) of the EIA 2006 Notification never attracted “General Conditions” unless Column 5 expressly provided—in this case, it never did.
- A fresh clarificatory notification dated 29.01.2025 (upheld by this Court) validly inserted “General Conditions shall not apply” to these entries and standardised the definition of “built-up area”.
- State‐level appraisal by SEIAAs/SEACs remains competent for building, construction, township and area development projects, including those falling within 5 km of protected/eco-sensitive zones, ensuring decentralisation.
- Note 1 to Entry 8(a) (exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels) was struck down as arbitrary and inconsistent with the EP Act’s object.
- NGT’s attempt to expand its jurisdiction by a purposive reading of quashed notifications was held contrary to delegated-legislation principles.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Literal Construction: Column 5 of the EIA Schedule enumerates entries subject to “General Conditions”; Items 8(a)&(b) are blank, signalling deliberate exclusion.
- Okhla Bird Sanctuary: This Court recognized the intended decentralization for building and township projects and highlighted the need to clarify GC applicability.
- Procedural Quashing ≠ Revival: Kerala HC’s quashing of the 2014 Notification on procedural grounds did not automatically resurrect GC for Items 8(a)&(b).
- Delegated-Legislation Principle: Annulment of a notification does not revive previous text unless expressly stated.
- Sustainable Development: Balance between environmental protection and development endorsed; SEIAAs/SEACs (expert bodies) are best placed for local appraisal.
- Vanashakti Judgment: Upheld the 29.01.2025 Notification (excluding arbitrary Note) and corresponding OM, reaffirming that GC do not apply to Items 8(a)&(b).
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (CREDAI, Godrej, Sai Sahara)
- Omission in Column 5 reflects legislative intent to exclude GC for Items 8(a)&(b).
- EIA 2014 Notification was merely clarificatory; Kerala HC’s procedural quashing did not alter substantive law.
- NGT lacked jurisdiction to entertain abstract policy issues and expand GC applicability.
- SEIAAs/SEACs possess requisite expertise; decentralisation avoids undue delays.
Union/MoEF&CC (Respondent No. 1)
- GC apply only where Column 5 so specifies; Items 8(a)&(b) were always excluded, as clarified by OMs of 2011 and 2020.
- 2014 Notification reaffirmed exclusion; quashed on procedural grounds.
- Fresh 2025 Notification duly issued after vetting, consultation and public comments.
- Decentralised appraisal by SEIAAs/SEACs is consistent with the EP Act, avoids overburdening the Centre.
Respondent No. 3 (Environmental NGO)
- Building and construction projects near critically/severely polluted or eco-sensitive areas demand central EAC scrutiny under the 2019 Section 5 mechanism.
- GC applicability was implicitly recognised by inclusion of Items 8 in subsequent notification processes.
- NGT’s purposive interpretation furthers environmental protection mandate.
Factual Background
Parties representing real estate developers appealed under Section 22 of the NGT Act against an NGT order dated 09.08.2024. The NGT had quashed the 22.12.2014 Notification (which excluded GC for Items 8(a)&(b)) on procedural grounds and directed MoEF&CC to treat building, construction and township projects within 5 km of protected areas, CPAs, SPAs, eco-sensitive zones or inter-state boundaries as Category A—requiring central appraisal. In response, MoEF&CC issued a fresh clarificatory Notification (29.01.2025) and OM (30.01.2025) reinstating exclusion of GC for Items 8(a)&(b); that notification (except an arbitrary carve-out for certain building types) was upheld by this Court in Vanashakti v. Union of India on 05.08.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3(1)&(2)(v): Empowers MoEF&CC to notify projects requiring prior environmental clearance.
- EIA 2006 Notification: Classifies projects into Category A (central EAC) and Category B (state SEAC/SEIAA); “General Conditions” in Column 5 convert specified B projects to A if within prescribed distances of sensitive areas. Items 8(a)&(b) contain no such condition.
- EIA 2014 Notification: Inserted explicit Note in Column 5 against Items 8(a)&(b); quashed by Kerala HC on procedural grounds—no substantive alteration of original scheme.
- NGT Act, 2010, Sections 14, 15 & 22: Define NGT’s jurisdiction over environmental disputes and right of appeal to this Court.
- Section 5 EP Act mechanism (2019): Mandates stricter scrutiny for projects within CPAs/SPAs; operates independently of GC applicability.
Procedural Innovations
- Notification dated 29 Jan 2025 clarified “built-up area” definition (floors, basements, service areas) and expressly excluded GC for Items 8(a)&(b) nationwide, addressing ambiguities noted in Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions (NGT vs Kerala HC)