World Environment Day Special- Recent Supreme Court Judgments On Environmental Law
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal by Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd against an NGT order holding that its manufacturing units, which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate - Allowed - The question in this case is, whether a unit contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood to hundreds of people, which has been set...
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal by Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd against an NGT order holding that its manufacturing units, which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate - Allowed - The question in this case is, whether a unit contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood to hundreds of people, which has been set up pursuant to requisite approvals from the concerned statutory authorities, and has applied for Ex post facto EC, should be closed down for the technical irregularity of want of prior environmental clearance, pending the issuance of EC, even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required norms. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, more so when the HSPCB was itself under the misconception that no environment clearance was required for the units in question. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Environmental Clearance - Need to comply with the requirement to obtain EC is non-negotiable. A unit can be set up or allowed to expand subject to compliance of the requisite environmental norms. EC is granted on condition of the suitability of the site to set up the unit, from the environmental angle, and also existence of necessary infrastructural facilities and equipment for compliance of environmental norms. To protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced. Under no circumstances can industries, which pollute, be allowed to operate unchecked and degrade the environment. (Para 62) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - The 1986 Act does not prohibit Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - It should not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all relevant environmental factors. Where the adverse consequences of denial of Ex post facto approval outweigh the consequences of regularization of operations by grant of Ex post facto approval, and the establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, Ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications. The deviant industry may be penalised by an imposition of heavy penalty on the principle of 'polluter pays' and the cost of restoration of environment may be recovered from it - An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution. (Para 63, 65,) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318
Environment Protection Act, 1986; Section 3 - Guidelines issued by the Union Ministry on February 9 2011 for Ecologically Sensitive Zones near protected forests held to be reasonable - Further directions issued in relation to ESZ -No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ - Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted. (Para 44) In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 540
Environmental Law - Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement- Precautionary Principle essential feature of the principle of 'Sustainable Development' - In case of a doubt, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest - Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. (Para 15-18) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467
Environmental Law - Appeal against NGT order directing that mining activity shall not be permitted within and in the vicinity of Simplipal - Hadagarh - Kuldiha – Simplipal elephant corridor - Disposed of - Implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan as suggested by the Standing Committee of NBWL before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone - Complete the process of declaration of the traditional elephant corridor as conservation reserve expeditiously. The mining operations of 97 quarries shall be permitted only thereafter. Binay Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233
Environmental Law - Public Trust Doctrine - Public Trust Doctrine is part of the law of land - The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a facilitator or generator of economic activities for immediate upliftment of the fortunes of the State. The State also has to act as a trustee for the benefit of the general public in relation to the natural resources so that sustainable development can be achieved in the long term. Such role of the State is more relevant today, than, possibly, at any point of time in history with the threat of climate catastrophe resulting from global warming looming large - Referred to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others [(1997) 1 SCC 388]. (Para 28) In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 540
Environmental Law - Supreme Court revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling of existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa) - Assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment, especially in the protected area and wildlife sanctuary taking into account all the major factors such as the impact on the habitat, species, climate, temperature etc. caused due to felling of trees (not only for the laying of railway tracks but also for the secondary works such as setting up machinery, disposal of waste, and putting in place various mitigation measures etc.), movement of trains, human-wildlife interactions would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - Supreme Court lifts curbs on iron sale and export from mines in Karnataka - Relaxes the directions issued in 2011. Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Establishment of NGT - The role of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory, but it also had the equally vital role which is preventive, ameliorative, or of the remedial category. (Para 6-10) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – NGT cannot refuse to hear a challenge to an Environmental Clearance under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act and delegate the process of adjudicating on compliance toan expert committee. [Referred to Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change 2021 SCC OnLine SC 669] (Para 16) Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 15 - An expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT. This is not a delegable function. Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 15 - Section 15 empowers the NGT to award compensation to the victims of pollution and for environmental damage, to provide for restitution of property which has been damaged and for the restitution of the environment. The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. Expert committees may be appointed to assist the NGT in the performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact-finding role. But adjudication under the statute is entrusted to the NGT and cannot be delegated to administrative authorities. Adjudicatory functions assigned to courts and tribunals cannot be hived off to administrative committees. (Para 16) Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 15 - Sections 14 and Section 15 entrust adjudicatory functions to the NGT. The NGT is a specialized body comprising of judicial and expert members. Judicial members bring to bear their experience in adjudicating cases. On the other hand, expert members bring into the decision-making process scientific knowledge on issues concerning the environment. [Referred to Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401] (Para 15) Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 15 - The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. Expert committees may be appointed to assist the NGT in the performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact-finding role. But adjudication under the statute is entrusted to the NGT and cannot be delegated to administrative authorities. (Para 16) Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 22 - NGT under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (Para 38(A), 12-15) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 22 - The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India - It cannot be seen as denial of access to justice to the litigants in the field of environmental law. (Para 38(B), 24-31) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 3 - Establishment of NGT - Constitutional validity upheld - Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central Government. (Para 38(C), 32-37) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 3, 4 - The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per Page 37 of 37 exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State - Prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected. (Para 38(D), 16-23) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495