Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
JIJO JOY – Respondent
WA NO. 2330 OF 2025 | WA NO. 3149 OF 2025 | WA NO. 3146 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2278 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2290 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2184 OF 2025
SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.P.P.JISHNU, SRI.V.HARISH, SRI.KANNAN, SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
SRI.BIBIN KUMAR & KUM.T.S.SAUMYA, SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.V.VIJAYAN
SRI.M.V.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
SRI.A.K.ANISH
The court declared the amendments to environmental clearance notifications unconstitutional for undermining environmental protections, procedural compliance, and maintaining jurisdiction to adjudicate despite claims of alternative remedies.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Notification S.O.1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 and Office Memorandum F.No.1A3-22/28/2022-1A.11 dated 13.12.2022 - Constitutional validity challenges - The petitioners contested the automatic extension of environmental clearances under the amended notification and the office memorandum as violative of statutory provisions. The court struck down the notifications, declaring them ultra vires for failing to uphold environmental protections and procedural requirements. (Paras 4, 8, 30, 38)
(B) Jurisdiction - Maintainability - The court ruled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 was appropriate as the constitutional validity of the notification was not within the purview of the National Green Tribunal. (Paras 76-78)
Facts of the case:
The learned Single Judge's judgment in various writ petitions was challenged, centering on the interpretation of recent amendments to environmental clearance notifications affecting mining operations, particularly their retrospective application on previously granted clearances affecting the environment and the community. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge ruled the notifications unconstitutional, asserting that they undermined existing environmental protections and procedural rules, resulting in significant potential environmental harm. (Paras 8, 85, 86)
Issues: The main issues included the constitutional validity of the contested notifications, their application to existing environmental clearances, maintainability of the writ petitions in light of available alternative remedies, and whether the challenge constituted a legitimate public interest claim. (Paras 6, 38)
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity of expert appraisal in environmental matters, asserting that direct statutory authority must evaluate project durations to meet environmental standards. Additionally, it rejected arguments that the notifications were merely procedural amendments. Thus, illegal expansions of project life and old environmental clearances were deemed unconstitutional. (Paras 8-11, 76-78)
Result: The appeals were allowed, requiring the issues to be reconsidered by the original bench, establishing that the prior notifications did not adhere to statutory and environmental protection requirements, rendering them invalid against public interest. (Paras 35-36)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal observations regarding jurisdiction and maintainability. (Para 1 , 14) |
| 2. introduction of case and background details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. details of the amendments related to environmental clearance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments from the petitioners regarding the notification. (Para 18) |
| 5. arguments presented by the 9th respondent's counsel. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J
The above writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arises out of the judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.23150 of 2023 and connected matters, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case.
2. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, issued notification, S.O.1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 [Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024] amending the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, extending the validity period of the Environmental Clearance for certain projects and activities. It was followed by a clarification vide Official Memorandum F.NO.1A3-22/28/2022-1A.111 [E 181584] dated 13.12.2022 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024], clarifying that the validity of environmental clearances, which had expired as on the date of publication of Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 shall stand automatically extended to the respective increased validity as mentioned in para No.1, column (C), subject to the proviso to para No.2(i), and that environmental clearances for 129 which the project proponents have submitted the application for extension of validity as per EIA Notification, 2006, as on the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 12.04.2022, shall stand automatically extended to respective increased validity as mentioned at para No.1, column (C).
3. 66 writ petitions were filed seeking the benefit of Ext.P8 notification read with the clarification contained in Ext.P9 office memorandum. One writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, was filed challenging its constitutional vires. As already noticed hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case.
4. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed that, in the 66 writ petitions preferred claiming the benefit of the Ext.P8 notification, the issue is one pertaining to the interpretation and the effect of the said notification. According to the petitioners, the Environmental Clearance granted for mining projects shall be valid for the ‘project life as laid down in the mining plan’ as per the amendment brought in to clause No.9 of Ext.P8 notification and the term ‘project life’ means the ‘mine life’, subject to a maximum of 30 years, whichever is earlier. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the subject matter of 130 challenge is the constitutional vires of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum dated 13.12.2022, on various counts. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 posed challenge to the said notification, only in the context of the environmental clearance (EC) issued to the quarry of the 9th respondent, i.e., Kabani Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd., primarily. The ECs issued by District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), for mining projects, are also generally under challenge. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum are ultra vires the Constitution and inconsistent with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 . Several grounds are raised to challenge the constitutional validity of the subject notification.
5. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024. Paragraph 18 of the judgment reads thus;
“18. Arguments of Sri. V.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024:-
T
