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
| 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
In Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others
Jagannath v. Union of India and Others
Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others
Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga and Others
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others
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....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.