Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE – Appellant
Versus
JIJO JOY, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. JOY P.J. – Respondent
WA NO. 2330 OF 2025 | WA NO. 3149 OF 2025 | WA NO. 3146 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2184 OF 2025

Advocates:
SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, JISHNU P.P.
SRI.V.HARISH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.KANNAN, SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SHRI.T. NAVEEN, SHRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ, SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, SRI.PHILIP J. VETTICKATTU, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, S.MT.SARITHA THOMAS

The amendment extending the validity of environmental clearances for mining projects is unconstitutional as it undermines statutory protections and the expert appraisal process mandated by environmental laws.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Constitutional validity of notification - Amendment extending validity of environmental clearances for mining projects challenged as ultra vires, being inconsistent with the Environment (Protection) Rules and requiring expert appraisal - Court held that such amendments violate statutory intent and established rights under the law and public interest considerations. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 10, 24)

(B) Applicability and scope of the amendment - Court determined that the amendments to the existing Environmental Clearances lacked clarity and removed essential review processes, rendering the application of the notification unconstitutional. (Paras 12, 32)

(C) Jurisdictional challenges - Court asserted its jurisdiction to review the legality of the notification, finding no merit in the argument regarding alternate remedies before specialized bodies, as it could override essential legal assessments. (Paras 6, 78)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from the disagreement with a Single Judge's ruling, seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of an amendment impacting numerous mining operations in light of environmental regulations. Affected parties raised issues of public interest against the notification's alleged retroactive applicability, underscoring violation of established environmental protections. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the implications of the notifications distinct from existing legislation, thereby preventing established environmental standards from being set aside. It reinforced the necessity of expert evaluation in the procedural integrity of environmental assessments. (Paras 10, 12)

Issues: The key issues identified included the interpretation of ‘project life’ versus ‘mine life,’ the maintainability of the appeals considering the jurisdictional context, and the overall impact of the notification on environmental protections in light of constitutional law. (Paras 38)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that upholding environmental integrity necessitates adhering to legislative and rule-based frameworks that prioritize expert assessments over amendments that compromise such structures, declaring the notifications unconstitutional and remanding matters for reconsideration on their merits. (Paras 85, 86)

Result: Appeals allowed; the impugned notifications struck down as unconstitutional.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal context and constitutional challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments concerning the validity and application of the ext.p8 notification. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's observations on the legal grounds of the argument presented. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. ratios governing the interpretation and applicability of environmental regulations. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. final conclusion of the court regarding the challenges to the notifications. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

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 9^th 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2895

The amendment extending the validity of environmental clearances for mining projects is unconstitutional as it undermines statutory protections and the expert appraisal process mandated by environmental laws.

Cases Referred (4)