Justices: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol Issue: The central question was whether Item 6 of the 28 March 2020 notification, which allowed the excavation of ordinary soil for linear projects such as roads and pipelines without needing prior Environmental Clearance (EC), was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Factual Background:
The origins of the case stem from a series of notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act):
2006 Notification: It required Environmental Clearances (ECs) for all Category A and B construction projects, ensuring that such projects underwent proper regulatory scrutiny to prevent environmental harm.
2016 Notification: After public consultation, an amendment allowed exemptions for certain projects, particularly those involving dredging or silt removal for construction and maintenance.
2020 Notification: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the MoEF issued an amendment to the 2016 Notification. Item 6 of this new notification allowed soil extraction for linear projects (e.g., roads, pipelines) without needing an EC. Notably, this notification was issued without public consultations.
Challenge and NGT's Ruling:
The 2020 Notification was contested before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which ruled that while exemptions for linear projects could be allowed, there needed to be appropriate safeguards on how much soil could be extracted and the process to ensure environmental protection. Dissatisfied, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, struck down Item 6 of the 2020 Notification. The Court ruled that the notification was unconstitutional for the following reasons:
Lack of Public Consultation:Unlike the 2016 Notification, which followed the proper procedure of public consultation under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the 2020 Notification bypassed this crucial step. Public involvement in environmental matters, especially in light of the citizen's fundamental duty to protect the environment under Article 51A, is essential. The Court held that denying this involvement without sufficient cause violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to live in a pollution-free environment.
Improper Haste:The 2020 Notification was issued just two days after the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown commenced, despite no immediate need to modify the existing 2016 Notification. Since construction activities were halted due to the pandemic, the absence of public consultation appeared arbitrary and unjustified.
Arbitrariness and Vagueness:The Supreme Court emphasized that exemptions from the EC procedure should be precise and reasoned. However, Item 6 lacked clarity about key elements, such as the quantity of soil allowed for extraction and the scope of "linear projects." The absence of these definitions, safeguards, and regulatory oversight rendered the exemption vague and prone to misuse. As a result, the Court deemed the notification arbitrary.
Impact of the Judgment:
This decision reaffirms the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making and the necessity of clear regulatory frameworks. It also upholds Article 21, which guarantees citizens the right to a clean and healthy environment. The ruling restricts blanket exemptions that could harm the environment without due scrutiny.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Noble M Paikada v. Union of India underlines the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding environmental protection laws, maintaining public participation, and ensuring that executive actions are backed by reason and clarity. The invalidation of Item 6 in the 2020 Notification is a significant step towards ensuring that linear projects, like all other construction efforts, are subject to the necessary environmental regulations.
Best Regards,
Eco Space Realtors Team
Your Trusted Partner for Real Estate Solutions in Bengaluru
📞: +91 9900984444
🔗 Link Bio: https://hopp.bio/esr
Expert Property Services | Property Documents Verification | Legal Drafting | Registration Services | Property Physical Audits Disclaimer:
The content provided in this blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, readers are advised to consult with legal professionals for specific legal guidance. The views expressed herein are based on the interpretation of court rulings and may not reflect the current position of law. The author and publisher accept no responsibility for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information contained in this blog.
Comments