A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) has issued an order to halt land clearance for the Silchar Greenfield Airport.
NEW DELHI: Today (6th May): The Supreme Court set aside a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that dismissed a plea against the clearing of land for the proposed greenfield airport at Doolo Tea Estate in Silchar, Assam. The Court observed that the clearing activities conducted without proper environmental clearance violated the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Directs NGT to Ensure Fairness and Due Process in Environmental Cases
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, found that the authorities had breached the EIA notification of 2006 by carrying out extensive clearance at the site without obtaining the required environmental clearance.
“We are of the view that authorities in the present case have acted in violation of the notification by carrying out extensive clearance at the site in absence of environmental clearance. Assam says the need was to set up a civilian airport. The decision where the airport should be is a matter of policy but when the law prescribes specific norms for carrying out activities. The provision of law has to be complied with and no environmental clearance has been issued till date,” the Court said.
The Court stressed that while the decision on the location of the airport is a matter of policy, compliance with the prescribed environmental norms is essential. It further directed that no activities should be carried out in violation of the 2006 notification.
The Court criticized the NGT for dismissing the plea, stating that the tribunal had neglected its duty. The plea, filed against the clearing of approximately 41 lakh shrubs, highlighted the absence of the EIA report and the lack of granted environmental clearance for the airport project.
READ ALSO: PM Modi’s Armoured Vehicle Registration | NGT Denies 5-Year Extension
During the hearing, the CJI suggested maintaining the status quo until the environmental clearance report is available. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered the petitioners, arguing that some of them had filed self-serving petitions from a distance of 1300 km. He also mentioned that workers on-site had cut trees for domestic purposes and stressed the importance of considering factors such as wind direction for the greenfield project.
The Court took note of a report from the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) secretary, which revealed that tea bushes were uprooted using heavy machinery, and the court-appointed officer faced difficulties due to thick forests and dangerous wildlife. The SG presented pictures to allege that the petitioners had misled the court.
SG Mehta argued that false claims about demolishing houses and cutting forests were misleading the Court, stating,
“This abuse of the court’s jurisdiction is evident. The alleged expert hasn’t even visited the site and suggests other lands without proper investigation.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, emphasized that both trees and bushes were being cut, and the admission of uprooting 41 lakh tea bushes highlighted inaccuracies in the joint secretary’s affidavit.
He insisted on a social impact assessment, noting,
“Workers are affected persons under the new land acquisition act.”
The Court observed prima facie evidence of 41 lakh bushes being uprooted, remarking that this action couldn’t be considered routine clearance.
It noted, “In this case, the site clearance wasn’t related to tea estate cultivation or regular maintenance.” Consequently, the Court concluded that the uprooting violated the EIA notification and criticized the NGT for dismissing the plea without verifying its authenticity.
“NGT should have verified the grievance instead of simply dismissing the OA,” it stated.
Despite the arguments presented, the Court maintained that no further steps should be taken until an EIA report becomes available.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NGT order and directed the State of Assam to reapply for the commencement of work once the clearance report is received. The Court also clarified that constructing workers’ homes would violate the EIA Notification.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
