JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

1. Application for intervention is allowed.

2. These Appeals arise from an order dated 25 January 2024 of the Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal.

3. The Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Union Government decided to build a commercial Airport at Silchar in Assam since the existing defence airport is not suitable for domestic civilian operations.

4. Three tea estates, namely: (i) Doloo; (ii) Khoreel; and (iii) Silcoorie were identified by the Government of Assam for the sites of the airport. The Airport Authority of India¹ [“AAI”] conducted a feasibility study and chose Doloo as the site for a new Greenfield Airport on land admeasuring approximately 335 hectares. AAI made a request for additional land, following which an adjacent area in the same tea estate admeasuring 69 hectares was identified. About 173 dwelling units are situated on the additional area of 69 hectares. The total land area thus admeasures 404 hectares.

5. The appellants moved the National Green Tribunal with the grievance that though in terms of the Notification dated 14 September 2006 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, an Environmental Clearance is required for the construction of an airport, the site has been cleared of shade trees and tea bushes despite the absence of such a clearance. The Appellant raised concerns regarding:

(i) extensive eviction leading to uprooting of 41,95,909 tea bushes, over 10,000 shade trees, and land acquisition in two divisions of the Tea Estate.

(ii) ongoing site clearance of 325 hectares with massive uprooting and felling.

(iii) imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. during eviction, utilizing 1050 bulldozers and excavators to clear 2500 bighas for the airport.

(iv) the airport project being Category-A, with site clearance already underway without prior Environmental Clearance, violating EIA Notification, 2006. Additionally, the proposed Airport falls under Category ‘A’ necessitating scoping, public consultation as per EIA Notification, 2006; however, post-eviction, no “public” remains for consultation in affected areas.

6. The National Green Tribunal² [NGT] by its order dated 25 January 2024, dismissed the OA. The NGT held that an Environmental Impact Assessment Report was awaited and the Environmental Clearance for the airport has not been granted. Yet it held that the plea of the appellants for an order of restraint on the grant of site clearances and in principle approvals was without merit at that stage. The NGT also observed that the mere inclusion of a clause under the head ‘Environment Clearances’ in the form of said Notification does not deem the same to be mandatory for purposes of the EIA assessment study.

7. The Appeals were taken up by this Court on 22 April 2024. The Petitioners have been represented by Mr. Prashant Bhushan. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appears for the respondents. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, senior counsel has appeared for the intervenors. It is an admitted position that an Environmental Clearance is required for the project of setting up the airport and no such clearance has been issued. Paragraph 2 of the Notification dated 14 September 2006 is in the following terms:

“2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC): The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category ‘A’ in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category ‘B’ in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:

(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification.

(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the