1. Challenge to the suspension of Environmental Clearance for a greenfield airport — direction to revisit recommendations regarding biodiversity and forest preservation in the Western Ghats. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
M.A. No. 965 of 2019 IN Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018
Decided On : 16-01-2020
IMPORTANT POINTS
The EAC is not lacking domain expertise.
There is no conflict of interest in respect of EIL.
Court must be circumspect in micro-managing the decision-making process by the by the expert body.
Headnote:
(a) Environmental law - Constitution of EAC by Supreme Court - Comprising persons with relevant background - Chairperson empowered to co-opt an expert as a member for a particular meeting - Clause 4(vii) of the order dated 7 January 2019 - EAC not lacking domain expertise - Nevertheless Union Government commended the need to ensure inclusion of persons with specialized knowledge of diverse disciplines in relation to environmental protection in the composition of the EAC. (Para 24, 26)
(b) Administration of justice - Conflict of interest - EIL appointed as consultant for preparing EIA report in 2012 - Assignment concluded upon issuance of EC by MoEF-CC on 28 October 2015 - Thereafter EIL appointed as independent engineer by Government of Goa for the project in 2017 in a competitive tendering process - Will not affect grant of EC. (Para 27)
(c) Administration of justice - Evaluation of merits primarily rests with an expert authority - The court can supervise procedural compliance - Once the expert body complies with procedural requirements all necessary inputs and has factored the necessary inputs into the decision-making process, court must be circumspect in micro-managing the decision-making process by the by the expert body by substituting its own opinion for that of the EAC - Directions given - National Environmental Engineering Research Institute [NEERI] directed to be appointed to oversee compliance with the directions. (Para 45, 48)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to environment clearance for Mopa airport in Goa.
Finding of the Court:
The EAC is not lacking domain expertise.
Result: Directions given and NEERI appointed to oversee compliance of directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
judicial review
- standard of review
- conflict of interest (Para 27)
-
judicial review
- environmental law
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the EAC's domain expertise, conflict of interest of the EIA consultant, and inadequacy of impact studies on forests, flora, fauna, and ecologically sensitive areas. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. The EAC's revised appraisal adequately addressed environmental concerns using established guidelines; the committee's composition and the consultant's dual role did not invalidate the process. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Does the lack of specific subject specialists in an Expert Appraisal Committee invalidate its environmental recommendations?
No. If the committee comprises experts with scientific backgrounds and domain knowledge on environment and infrastructure, it is not faulted for lacking specific specialists, provided it has the power to co-opt experts for specific meetings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
5. Does the appointment of an EIA consultant as an independent engineer for the same project invalidate the Environmental Clearance?
Not necessarily. If the consultant was appointed as an independent engineer through a competitive tendering process after the initial Environmental Clearance was granted, such a dual role does not result in the invalidation of the clearance. (Para 27 )
6. How is the impact of a project on Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) evaluated when the project site is not within an ESA?
Evaluation considers the distance of the project from the ESA, the specific nature of the project's emissions (such as aircraft altitude during takeoff), and the alignment of operations relative to the sensitive zones. (Para 8 , 28 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
| INDEX | |
| A. | Introduction |
| B. | Appraisal by the EAC |
| B.1 Zero-Carbon programme | |
| C. | Genesis of the proposed airport |
| D. | The present challenge |
| D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC | |
| D.2 Conflict of interest | |
| D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs | |
| D.4 Forestland and flora and fauna | |
| E. | Directions |
A. Introduction
1. The Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change [MoEF-CC] moved these proceedings, seeking a direction that the Minutes of the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee [EAC] dated 23 April 2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by this Court on the Environmental Clearance [EC] for a greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted. This follows upon the judgment dated 23 April 2019 which was rendered on a challenge addressed to this Court against a decision of the National Green Tribunal [NGT] upholding the EC, subject to compliance with certain conditions. By the judgment of this Court, reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India, (2019) SCCOnline SC 441 : 2019 Supreme(SC) 374 the process leading up to the grant of an EC on 28 October 2015 was held to be flawed. The directions that were imposed by the Court were formulated in the following terms:
“175. …
(i) The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC, including the conditions which it has formulated, having regard to the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment;
(ii) The EAC shall carry out the exercise under (i) above within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(iii) Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed above, the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 shall remain suspended;
(iv) Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present directions, the EAC, if it allows the construction to proceed will impose such additional conditions which in its expert view will adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco systems noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty to lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment;
(v) The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance furnished by the concessionaire to this Court that it is willing to adopt and implement necessary safeguards bearing in mind international best practices governing greenfield airports;
(vi) We grant liberty to the State of Goa as the project proponent and the MoEFCC, as the case may be, to file the report of the EAC before this Court in the form of a Miscellaneous Application so as to facilitate the passing of appropriate orders in the proceedings; and
(vii) No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the report that is to be submitted before this Court by the EAC in compliance with the present order.”
Pending the completion of the process mandated in the above terms, this Court suspended the EC which had been granted on 28 October 2015.
The directions issued by this Court required the EAC:
(i) To revisit its recommendations for the grant of the EC including the conditions which it had imposed; and
(ii) To impose, in the event that it allowed the construction of the airport to proceed additional conditions to adequately protect the concerns governing the terrestrial eco-systems noticed in the judgment, besides formulating conditions pertaining to air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment. While doing so, the EAC was under a mandate to take into consideration the specific concerns which were highlighted in the judgment.
2. The basis of the directions that were issued by this Court was formulated in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment which reads thus:
“174.Bearing in view the necessity to maintain a balance between the need for an airport and environmental concerns, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the EAC is directed to revisit
