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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2939

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 – Respondent
WA NO. 2330 OF 2025 | WA NO. 3149 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2184 OF 2025 | WA NO. 3146 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2278 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2671 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2377 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2383 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2382 OF 2025 | WA NO. 2326 OF 2025



Advocates:
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 FOR R1
SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.KANNAN R2 TO R4
SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R6
SHRI.T. NAVEEN, SC FOR R5
SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ FOR R7
SRI.PHILIP J. VETTICKATTU FOR R8 TO R10
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R11
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC, SEIAA FOR R13

The extension of environmental clearances without proper public consultation is unconstitutional, undermining goals of environmental protection as mandated by law.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, and 51A(g) - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 - Amendment of EIA Notification to extend the validity of environmental clearances for mining projects by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change challenged as unconstitutional - The High Court ruled that the amendments in the EIA Notification are unconstitutional and ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules due to lack of public consultation and illegal retroactive application. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 30, 38, 85, 86)

(B) Jurisdiction - Writ - High Court found jurisdiction to hear writ as the National Green Tribunal did not possess the authority to issue such writs - The court ruled that challenges to the notification directly affect environmental rights and the public interest, justifying writ jurisdiction. (Paras 7, 30)

(C) Maintainability - The court noted that the petitioner acted in a representative capacity for public interest, protecting environmental balance, and therefore the objection to maintainability was dismissed. (Paras 12, 30, 31)

“C.R”

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 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 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:-

The petitioner styles himself as an affected party due to the illegal and unscientific mining conducted by the 9th respondent entity, which is being done at a distance of 400 metres only from the petitioner's place of residence, with his family. Petitioner, along with his aged mother and family, is residing at Rajagiri, in Pulingome Village, a very peaceful area near to a wild

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