Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Union Of India Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Environment Forest And Climate Change – Appellant
Versus
Jijo Joy, S/O. Joy P.J. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity period extension for environmental clearance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. arguments against the constitutional validity of notifications. (Para 6 , 7 , 30) |
| 3. court's observations on jurisdiction and maintainability. (Para 8 , 9 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 34) |
| 4. decision on the appropriateness of procedures and public consultation. (Para 10) |
| 5. final conclusion striking down the notifications. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J
1. 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.
The court declared the notification extending environmental clearances for mining projects unconstitutional, citing lack of public consultation and violation of statutory procedures under the Environ....
Environmental clearances must adhere to statutory requirements; retrospective extensions without public consultation violate legal and constitutional mandates.
Court held that amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, which shifted authority and reduced public consultation, were unconstitutional and violated environmental protections u....
The court ruled that amendments extending environmental clearance validity violate statutory and constitutional mandates, undermining effective environmental governance and public interest.
The Court ruled that notifications extending the validity of environmental clearances without adequate assessment were unconstitutional, violating the Environment (Protection) Act and the EIA Notific....
The amendments to environmental clearance validity in the notification and office memorandum were held unconstitutional, infringing environmental protections and the role of the expert appraisal comm....
The notification extending environmental clearance validity without proper consultation is unconstitutional, undermining environmental protection statutes.
Environmental clearances for mining projects must be assessed by designated expert bodies, and any amendments to related regulations must align with environmental protection principles, as per statut....
Amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification extending clearance validity for mining projects were struck down as unconstitutional for violating environmental protections and delega....
The court ruled that amendments to environmental clearance regulations violated statutory requirements, emphasizing the importance of expert appraisal in environmental protection, thus declaring the ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
