#SupremeCourt strikes down exemption granted under Centre's 29 January notification to projects related to industrial sheds and education from applicability of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006.
Bench: Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
Bench: Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
The Court partially upheld the MoEFCC notification while setting aside the aforementioned exception.
Earlier, the Court had granted a temporary stay on the impugned notification.
livelaw.in/top-stories/su…
livelaw.in/top-stories/su…
Order:
Courts have consistently insisted upon protecting the environment. It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time the courts have also taken into consideration the need for development activities.
Courts have consistently insisted upon protecting the environment. It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time the courts have also taken into consideration the need for development activities.
Order:
A country cannot progress unless development takes place. The Court in a catena of decisions has adopted the principle of sustainable development.
A country cannot progress unless development takes place. The Court in a catena of decisions has adopted the principle of sustainable development.
Order:
Therefore while ensuring that development is permitted, the Court have also required precaution to be taken that least damage is caused to the environment and ecology. The courts have also insisted upon mitigation and compensatory measures to compensate the loss caused.
Therefore while ensuring that development is permitted, the Court have also required precaution to be taken that least damage is caused to the environment and ecology. The courts have also insisted upon mitigation and compensatory measures to compensate the loss caused.
Order: learned ASG has submitted that it is not possible for MoEF to consider the projects throughout the country. The SEIAA is a body of experts appointed by the central government itself.
Order:
We see no reason why it should not be permitted to consider the proposals pertaining to the projects in their respective States if it is a properly constituted body in accordance with the statute.
We see no reason why it should not be permitted to consider the proposals pertaining to the projects in their respective States if it is a properly constituted body in accordance with the statute.
Order: The procedure as to how the SIA shall conduct impact assessment is also described under the 2006 notification.
Another reason that is given for the 2025 notification is that the 2006 notification was ambiguous about the builtup area.
Another reason that is given for the 2025 notification is that the 2006 notification was ambiguous about the builtup area.
Order:
However, the 2006 notification clearly defines builtup area.
While we are inclined to uphold the impugned notification, we are of the view that the exemption of applicability of the 2006 notification to the projects and activities industrial shades school colleges
However, the 2006 notification clearly defines builtup area.
While we are inclined to uphold the impugned notification, we are of the view that the exemption of applicability of the 2006 notification to the projects and activities industrial shades school colleges
Order: hostels, and educational institutions does not appear to be in tune with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act.
It was submitted that guidelines have been provided to ensure that school colleges etc. will adhere to the environmental aspect,
It was submitted that guidelines have been provided to ensure that school colleges etc. will adhere to the environmental aspect,
Order:
no mechanism like impact assessment to be done by an expert body like SEIAA has been provided. If any construction activity in an area more than 20000 sqft is carried out it will naturally have an effect on the environment even if the building is for educational purpose.
no mechanism like impact assessment to be done by an expert body like SEIAA has been provided. If any construction activity in an area more than 20000 sqft is carried out it will naturally have an effect on the environment even if the building is for educational purpose.
Order: wish you no reason to discriminate The Other buildings with the buildings constructed for industrial or educational purposes. It is common knowledge that education is no more appearly service oriented profession and nowadays has also become a flourishing industry.
Order:
We see no reason behind the exemption of 2006 notification for the industry and educational buildings.
The office memorandum dated 30th January only clarifies that the impugned notification would also be applicable to Kerala.
We see no reason behind the exemption of 2006 notification for the industry and educational buildings.
The office memorandum dated 30th January only clarifies that the impugned notification would also be applicable to Kerala.
Order: It could thus be seen that the clarification rather than being adverse to the environmental interest is conducive to the environmental interest in as much as it also makes the restriction applicable to the State of Kerala.
Order: therefore while upholding the impugned notification dated 29th January 2025 we hold that the Note 1 to clause 8(a) is arbitrary and therefore is liable to be set aside. The petition is partially allowed. The impugned notification is upheld except Note 1 to clause 8(a) which is set aside.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
