SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1184

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Vanashakti – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025
Decided On : 05-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Ms. Shaurya Dasgupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samit Shukla, Adv. Ms. Saakhsi Saboo, Adv. Mr. Tarpit Patni, Adv. Ms. Sonam Singh, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Adv. Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. For M/s. Trilegal Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Mr. D.p.singh, Adv. Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv. Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Arnav Narain, AOR Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Adv. Ms. Rajpurkar Sayalee Shrikant, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Kunal A Cheema, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Samit Shukla,, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Saboo,, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao,, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Singh,, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, AOR

Notification altering environmental regulations must align with prior judicial findings, ensuring no arbitrary exemptions for projects requiring assessments.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Notification dated 29th January, 2025 - Challenges against notification altering regulations from 2006 - Notification quashed by the High Court of Kerala earlier, with further notifications subsequently quashed/diluted - Court emphasized need for balance between environmental protection and developmental activities (Paras 1, 6, 14, 32).

(B) Legal principle established that General Conditions do not apply to projects listed under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule as per 2006 Notification, reinforcing the illegality of the arbitrary exemptions in the 2025 notification (Paras 26, 40).

Facts of the case:
The petition challenges the 2025 notification from MoEF&CC seen as an encroachment on environmental safeguards established by previous notifications, with arguments presented regarding suppression of material facts.

Findings of Court:
Notification upheld, excluding arbitrary exemptions for certain projects (educational and industrial buildings) where environmental assessment is necessary (Paras 46, 47).

Issues: Whether the 2025 notification adequately considers previous judicial findings and whether the exemptions are justifiable.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found the exclusion of certain project types from environmental assessment unjustified, reiterating the necessity of such assessments (Paras 40, 41).

Result: Writ Petition partly allowed; exclusions from notification quashed.

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.V. Dinesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor(s), supporting the case of the petitioner.

3. We have also heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India (MoEF&CC), Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Maharashtra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor(s) and other learned counsel.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, submits that the impugned notification dated 29th January, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned notification’) totally changes the regime, which was provided by the notification dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2006 notification’). Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, submits that the Union of India has been making consistent efforts to dilute the provisions contained in the 2006 notification by issuing notifications dated 22nd December, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2014 notification’), 9th December, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2016 notification’) and 14th and 15th November, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2018 notification’). It is submitted that 2014 notification was quashed and set aside by the High Court of Kerala vide judgment and order dated 6th March, 2024. Similarly, it is submitted that the 2016 notification issued by the MoEF&CC was quashed and set aside by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide judgment dated 8th December, 2017. He further submits that the 2018 notification has been stayed by the High Court of Delhi by an order dated 26th November, 2018.

5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the preamble of the 2025 notification does not refer to the judgment of the learned NGT and the order of the Delhi High Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned notification suffers from suppression of material facts.

6. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, further submits that under the 2006 notification, the General Conditions were applicable to the projects covered under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. He submits that under the General Conditions, any project or activity within 10 kms. from the boundary of:

(i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,

(ii) Crfitically polluted areas as identified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time,

(iii) Eco-sensitive areas as notified under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, such as Mahabaleshwar Panchgani, Matheran, Panchmarhi, Dahanu, Doon Valley and

(iv) Inter-State boundaries and international boundaries, are to be examined only by the MoEF&CC and not b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top