Back
B. R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Vanashakti – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to environmental notification. (Para 1) |
| 2. challenge to notification's legality. (Para 2) |
| 3. impugned notification alters 2006 provisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. allegations of suppression and changes to previous regulations. (Para 6) |
| 5. clarification regarding general conditions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. capacity of moef&cc to handle projects. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. 2014 and 2016 notifications set aside. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. ngt findings on environmental cell. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. consistency in notification revisions. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 10. interpretation of legislative intent. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 11. sustainable development principles acknowledged. (Para 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 12. quashing of arbitrary provisions. (Para 46) |
| 13. final order of the court. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
1. The present petition challenges the notification dated 29th January, 2025 bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MoEF&CC’) and the Office Memorandum dated 30th January, 2025 issued by the MoEF&CC.
2. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri P.
Notification altering environmental regulations must align with prior judicial findings, ensuring no arbitrary exemptions for projects requiring assessments.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2006 Notification's General Conditions do not apply to building and construction projects listed as Items 8(a) and 8(b), affirming the intent for state-level....
Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance - It is a trite law that a writ cannot be issued on ground of violation of principles of natural justice if only one conclusion is possible in a given si....
![Calicut Landmark Builders and Developers of India [P] Ltd. VS Shaji A. K. - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 186](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_2.png)
The court emphasized the importance of enforcing the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) and ensuring compliance by the Project Proponent. The judgment was issued based on the specific cir....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Const....
Legislature intended to create a specialist body in the form of National Green Tribunal to consider the validity of orders granting or rejecting applications for EC. The remedy of an appeal with the ....
Point of law: Basis of categorisation of projects and activities under the EIA notification lies in the expanse of the built-up area of the proposed project.
The court affirmed that any expansion exceeding specified limits under the EIA Notification requires prior Environmental Clearance, emphasizing rigorous compliance with environmental assessment proce....
Ex post facto environmental clearance is illegal as it undermines the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment and contravenes established environmental laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
