Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, 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. 2184 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, JISHNU P.P., SMT.RADHIKAKRISHNA
For the Respondents: SRI.V.HARISH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.KANNAN, SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SHRI.T. NAVEEN, SC, PCB, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ, SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, SRI.PHILIP J. VETTICKATTU, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
The court struck down amendments to the EIA Notification as unconstitutional, affirming that removal of expert assessments violates environmental protection mandates.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Constitutional validity - Notification S.O.1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 amending EIA Notification - Petitioners sought extension of environmental clearances for mining projects - Challenged amendments claiming they are ultra vires and violate various provisions of law - Court found the amendments vague, ambiguous, and unconstitutional, striking down the notification and office memorandum as invalid and ordering action in accordance with the law regarding expired environmental clearances. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 12, and 35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of a government notification and subsequent office memorandum that purportedly extended the validity of environmental clearances for mining projects; arguing substantial environmental harm and violations were permitted under these amendments. The cases attracted considerable public interest due to their implications on environmental protections.
Findings of Court:
The amendments to the EIA Notification removed the expert body's role in determining environmental clearances, creating ambiguity regarding project validity terms, leading the Court to rule such actions as ultra vires.
Issues: The court examined issues including the appropriateness of public consultation requirements, the legitimacy of the notification's retrospective application, and proper jurisdiction under the NGT.
Ratio Decidendi: The learned Single Judge highlighted that the expert body's discretion on environmental assessments was being unlawfully diminished, rendering the amendments unconstitutional and harmful to public and environmental interests.
Result: The court struck down the impugned notification as unconstitutional and ordered the concerned authorities to take actions complying with the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review of environmental clearance validity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against the validity of notification regarding environmental clearances. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. observations on the necessity of expert assessment for environmental impacts. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. implications of notifications on existing environmental clearances. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion on the unconstitutionality of notifications related to mining projects. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
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.44
