1. Appeals against NGT order directing building and construction projects within 5km of sensitive areas to be treated as Category A under EIA 2006 Notification. (Para 2 , 3 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1683
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (Credai) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024
With
Godrej Properties Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5532 of 2025
With
Sai Sahara Developers Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5533 of 2025
Decided On : 12-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Mr. Devdutt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Kapil Madan, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samit Shukla, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Adv. Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Adv. For M/s.Trilegal Advocates On Record
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. Sharmishtha Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Shurya Rai, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv. Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Swetab Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhushan Mahendra Oza, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amber Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Nayyar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) :Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Mr. Devdutt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Kapil Madan, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samit Shukla, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Adv. Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Adv. For M/s.Trilegal Advocates On Record
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. Sharmishtha Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Shurya Rai, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv. Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Swetab Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhushan Mahendra Oza, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amber Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Nayyar, Adv.
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 clearance.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 3(1), 3(2)(v) - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 22 - Applicability of General Conditions under EIA 2006 Notification to Items 8(a) and 8(b) - The NGT ordered that projects falling within 5 km of protected areas must be appraised as Category A projects. The appellants argued the inapplicability of General Conditions, supported by legislative and judicial precedents emphasizing decentralization and specific authority provisions. Thus, it was established that the General Conditions did not apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b) as per the EIA notifications. The Supreme Court held that the NGT misinterpreted the EIA framework, affirming the 2025 Notification which clarified that General Conditions do not apply and upheld the legislative intent for a decentralized appraisal process. (Paras 11, 12, 24.1, and 24.2)
Findings of Court:
The NGT order was set aside, reaffirming authority levels for project clearance.
Issues: The core issue was the jurisdictional authority for appraising environmental clearance for construction projects.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper interpretation of the EIA Notifications and legislative intent concluded that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction, compelling the need for the 2025 Notification reaffirming state-level appraisal authority was necessary.
Result: Appeals disposed of, NGT order quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argue General Conditions are inapplicable to Item 8 projects; Respondent 3 contends they apply to ensure higher scrutiny in polluted and eco-sensitive areas. (Para 10 )
3. Appeals disposed of in light of coordinate bench judgment confirming General Conditions do not apply to Item 8 projects and upholding the 2025 Notification. (Para 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, including the intervenor, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for Respondent No. 1, and the learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 3. We have also perused the materials available on record.
2. The appellants herein are the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India1[In short, “CREDAI”] (Civil Appeal No.10043 of 2024), Godrej Properties Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5532 of 2025), and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.5533 of 2025). These appeals have been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 20102[In short, “the NGT Act”], assailing the final order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal3[In short, “NGT”] in Original Application No. 93 of 2024 (CZ).
3. By the impugned order, the NGT allowed the original application filed by Respondent No. 3, and directed Respondent No. 1, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change4[In short, “MoEF&CC”] to ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of the following categories: -
(i) protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
(ii) critically polluted areas and severely polluted areas identified by Respondent No. 2, Central Pollution Control Board5[In short, “CPCB”],
(iii) eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3 (2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 19866[In short, “the EP Act”], and
(iv) inter-state boundaries
shall be treated as ‘Category A’ projects and appraised at the Central Level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee7[In short, “Central SEAC”] . Respondent No. 1 was further directed either to strictly implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.20068[In short, “EIA 2006 Notification”], or to issue a clarificatory notification.
3.1. In arriving at its conclusion, the NGT held, inter alia, that –
(i) The “General Conditions” under the EIA 2006 Notification are applicable to projects and activities covered under item 8(a) – Building and Construction Projects, and item 8(b) – Township and Area Development Projects of the Schedule thereto; and
(ii) The Notification dated 22.12.20149[In short, “EIA 2014 Notification”] issued by MoEF&CC, inserting a Note under items 8(a) and 8(b) excluding the applicability of the General Conditions, stood quashed by judgment dated 06.03.2024 of the High Court of Kerala in One Earth One Life v. MoEF , WP (C) No. 3097 of 2016 . Consequently, the General Conditions now stand revived and are applicable to projects and activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA 2006 Notification.
4. Although the appellants were not parties before the NGT, they are directly and substantially affected by the impugned order, as the findings and directions therein have an adverse bearing on their ongoing and proposed real estate projects, resulting in indefinite delays in execution and completion. The appellants, therefore, invoking their statutory right of appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act, have approached this court with the instant appeals.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.10043 of 2024 submitted that the appellant – CREDAI – is the apex body of private real estate developers in India, established in 1999 with the objective of transforming the real estate sector and promoting housing and habitat. It represents more than 13,000 developers across 230 city chapters in 21 States, and plays a significant role in policy formation concerning the real estate industry. The members of the appellant undertake projects falling within items 8(a) – Building and Construction Projects, and Item 8(b) – Township and Area Development Projects – of the Schedule to the EIA 2006 Notification.
5.1. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the “General Conditions” (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification are inapplicable to Items 8(
![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)
