The Supreme Court upheld the Environment Ministry’s 2021 notification on mandatory public hearings, striking down the exemption clause for major projects. It stressed, “Natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation,” reinforcing intergenerational equity and environmental protection.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court upheld the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change’s notification from January 29, but invalidated a controversial clause that exempted certain large building and construction projects from needing prior environmental clearance.
A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran ruled that projects with a built-up area exceeding 20,000 square meters, regardless of whether they are industrial, educational, or otherwise, must comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2006 regulations.
The court confirmed that this notification also extends to Kerala.
In delivering the order, the Chief Justice stated,
“It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time, courts have always taken note of development activities and the country cannot progress without it.”
He emphasized the court’s commitment to sustainable development, noting that while development is essential, precautions must be taken to minimize environmental damage, and costs for such impacts may be imposed on developers.
The ruling indicated that it would be impractical for the union ministry to evaluate projects nationwide, suggesting that assessments could be conducted on a state-by-state basis.
The court remarked,
“If any construction activity in any area more than 20,000 sq km is carried out, it will have environmental impact even if it’s for industrial or educational purposes, and discrimination cannot be made with similar such institutes.”
It further stated that no exemptions should be granted to the education sector, asserting that education has become a significant industry and thus should not be exempt from the 2006 notification.
The bench upheld the notification with the exception of clause 8, which allowed exemptions for industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with built-up areas up to 150,000 square meters.
Previously, on February 25, the Supreme Court had stayed the notification in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption undermined the EIA’s protections and posed risks to eco-sensitive zones.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the NGO, pointed out that similar attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 had been rejected or stayed by various courts, including the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court.
The petition contended that bypassing environmental clearance for projects of such magnitude, exceeding 1.6 million square feet, would lead to irreversible harm to land, water, and air quality, violating the precautionary principle embedded in Indian environmental law.
Before the January 29 amendment, the EIA 2006 mandated environmental clearance for all construction projects over 20,000 square meters.
The challenged notification raised this threshold to 150,000 square meters for certain categories, while also removing “general conditions” applicable in eco-sensitive and polluted areas.
An office memorandum issued on January 30 further expanded the exemptions to include private universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds containing machinery or raw materials.