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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
Fatima - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, rep by its Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110 003 – Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.8866 and 11757 of 2021 and W.P.No.18829 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6666 and 12052 of 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.8866 of 2021 W.M.P.(MD)No.9241 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.6193 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)No.11757 of 2021 W.M.P.Nos.20128 and 20130 of 2021 in W.P.No.18829 of 2021 AND Contempt Petition No.56 of 2022 and Sub Application No.629 of 2023 in Cont.P.No.56 of 2022
Decided On : 30-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.A.Yogeshwaran, Ms.B.Poongkhulali along with Mr.Nagesh Nakhul, Mr.Iraiyanbu Prasad, Mr.M.V.Swaroop.
For the Respondents:Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Addl.Solicitor General of India assisted by Dr. G. Babu, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram then Advocate General instructed by Mr. P. Muthukumar, State Government Pleader assisted by Ms. A.G. Shakeena, Ms. Sona Sathish Kumar, Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General instructed by Dr. T. Seenivasan, Spl.G.P.
For the Intervenors : Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel and Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr. Karthik Sundaram along with Ms. Deepika Murali, Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Pradeep Shankar, Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, along with Ms. M. Mahamani.

Ex post facto environmental clearances should not be routine and must be limited to exceptional circumstances to uphold environmental protections.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - No explicit prohibition on ex post facto environmental clearances (EC); nevertheless, appropriate procedure mandates prior clearances. (Paras 11, 17-18, 25)

(B) Legal Principles - Ex post facto EC should be regarded as an exception to prior EC requirement. UOI's directives were issued disregarding legal procedure. (Paras 26-28)

(C) Relevant Facts - Impugned Office Memoranda dated 19.02.2021 and 07.07.2021 allowing ex post facto EC were contested on grounds of environmental degradation and public interest. (Paras 12, 27)

(D) Court's Issues - Whether ex post facto EC can be routinely allowed contradicting existing environmental regulations. (Para 11) (E) Findings - Impugned OMs failed to show necessity for ex post facto clearance and were quashed prospectively; legal sanctity of prior EC emphasized. (Paras 26, 27) (F) Ratio Decidendi - Ex post facto EC must be exceptional, not a routine mechanism; it endangers environmental protections and public trust. (Paras 15-20) (G) Result - Writ petitions allowed; impugned OMs quashed, contempt petition closed. (Para 29)

Table of Content
1. petitions challenge actions of the ministry of environment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's observations on procedural adherence in judicial hierarchy. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments presented regarding ex post facto environmental clearances. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 , 18)
4. summary of significant precedents relevant to ex post facto clearances. (Para 13)
5. court's reasoning regarding environmental laws and regulations. (Para 14 , 15 , 26)
6. final ruling on the validity of the office memoranda concerning environmental clearances. (Para 27 , 28)
7. final judgment allowing petitions and clarifying non-compliance actions. (Para 29)

ORDER :

(M. Sundar, J.) :

This common order will govern the captioned three 'Writ Petitions' ('W.Ps' in plural and 'W.P.' in singular for the sake of brevity), captioned 'writ miscellaneous petitions' thereat ('W.M.Ps' in plural and 'W.M.P' in singular for the sake of brevity), captioned Contempt Petition and Sub Application thereat.

2. In 'captioned W.P.(MD)No.8866 of 2021' (hereinafter 'I Fatima WP' for the sake of convenience) inter-alia a 'Office Memorandum' [hereinafter 'OM' in singular and 'OMs' in plural, though plural of 'memorandum' is 'memoranda' for the sake of brevity] dated 19.02.2021 issued by the sole respondent thereat ['Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change' (hereinafter 'MoEF' for the sake of brevity)] has been assailed. This 19.02.2021 OM issued by MoEF shall hereinafter be referred to as 'I impugned OM' for the sake of convenience. In this I Fatima WP, vide an interim order dated 30.04.2021 made in W.M.P.(MD)No.6666 of 2021, another Hon'ble Division Bench has stayed this I impugned OM prospectively, this interim order has been assailed in Hon'ble Supreme Court by 'Union of India' {hereinafter 'UOI' for the sake of brevity} vide S.L.P.(C)Diary No.33840 of 2023, notice has been issued and interim stay {interim stay qua interim stay order of Madras High Court Division Bench, i.e., in effect suspending the interim stay granted by another Division Bench of Madras High Court} had been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 which is operating and Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seizin of the SLP.

3.In 'captioned W.P.(MD)No.11757 of 2021' (hereinafter 'II Fatima WP' for the sake of convenience), inter-alia a OM dated 07.07.2021 issued by the sole respondent thereat, i.e., MoEF has been assailed and an interim order dated 15.07.2021 made in W.M.P.(MD)No.9241 of 2021 in this II Fatima WP reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 12936 staying the operation of this 07.07.2021 OM issued by MoEF {hereinafter 'II impugned OM' for the sake of convenience and clarity} is operating.

4.The aforementioned II impugned OM along with a notification dated 28.01.2022 issued by MoEF has been assailed in Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by a 'Non Governmental Organization' ('NGO' for the sake of brevity) which goes by the name 'Vanashakti', Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice, granted an interim order (subsequently clarified the interim order saying that the same will not come in the way of the competent authorities considering proposals for modifications/alterations in Environmental Clearances) and therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seizin of challenge to aforementioned II impugned OM.

5. In 'captioned W.P.No.18829 of 2021' (hereinafter 'III WP' and/or 'Bharathi WP' for the sake of convenience) inter-alia aforesaid I impugned OM (dated 19.02.2021) issued by first respondent thereat, i.e., MoEF has been assailed. In other words, the prayer is same as in I Fatima WP and III WP.

6.Captioned Contempt Petition No.56 of 2022 has been filed complaining of violation of an order dated 13.10.2017 made by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 'W.P.No.11189 of 2017' (hereinafter 'Puducherry WP' for the sake of convenience) wherein inter-alia a notification dated 14.03.2017 issued by MoEF was called in question. To be

    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