Developmental Projects Must Proceed In Harmony With Environmental Laws: SC On Proposed Greenfield Airport Case

The Supreme Court emphasised that the developmental projects must proceed in harmony with the environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity.

The Court was deciding appeals arising from an order of the Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

The three-Judge Bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra said, “Environmental regulations are in place precisely to ensure that developmental projects, such as the establishment of airports, are undertaken in a manner that minimizes adverse ecological impacts and safeguards the well-being of both the environment and local communities. While acknowledging the importance of infrastructure development, it is paramount that such projects proceed in harmony with environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. The requirement for Environmental Clearance serves as a crucial safeguard against unchecked exploitation of natural resources and helps uphold the principles of sustainable development- which safeguards the interests of both present and future generations. Therefore, while the decision to establish an airport may serve broader policy objectives, it must be executed within the confines of legal frameworks designed to protect the environment and ensure responsible resource management.”

The Bench added that the failure to adhere to the said norms not only undermines the integrity of environmental governance but also risks long-term environmental degradation and societal discord.

AOR Prashant Bhushan appeared for the appellants while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior AAG Nalin Kohli, and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared for the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Union Government decided to build a commercial Airport at Silchar in Assam since the existing defence airport was not suitable for domestic civilian operations. Three tea estates, namely, (i) Doloo; (ii) Khoreel; and (iii) Silcoorie were identified by the Government of Assam for the sites of the airport. The Airport Authority of India (AAI) conducted a feasibility study and chose Doloo as the site for a new Greenfield Airport on land admeasuring approximately 335 hectares. AAI made a request for additional land, following which an adjacent area in the same tea estate admeasuring 69 hectares was identified. About 173 dwelling units were situated on the additional area of 69 hectares. The total land area thus admeasured 404 hectares.

The appellants moved the NGT with the grievance that though in terms of the Notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, an Environmental Clearance was required for the construction of an airport, the site was cleared of shade trees and tea bushes despite the absence of such a clearance. The NGT dismissed the application and held that an Environmental Impact Assessment Report was awaited and the Environmental Clearance for the airport was not granted. Yet it held that the plea of the appellants for an order of restraint on the grant of site clearances and in principle approvals was without merit at that stage. Hence, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “… the clearance of the site cannot be unequivocally attributed to the cultivation activities of the tea estate. The clearance was evidently not a part of the regular maintenance of the tea estate but to facilitate the proposed new airport. … There was a complete abdication of adjudicatory duties by the NGT to verify the authenticity of the grievance of the appellants. As an expert body which has been formed under a statute enacted by the Parliament, in the interest of the preservation of the environment, it was first and foremost the duty of the Tribunal to verify the authenticity of the grievance of the appellants.”

The Court further said that the perfunctory dismissal of the case by the NGT not only reflects a lack of due diligence but also demonstrates a disregard for the gravity of the environmental concerns raised by the appellants. It added that such casual, if not callous, approach to adjudication not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also compromises the very purpose for which the NGT was established – to safeguard the environment, ensure sustainable development and facilitate the effective and expeditious disposal of cases related to the protection and conservation of the environment, forests, and other natural resources.

“Such negligence on the part of the Tribunal sets a concerning precedent, eroding public trust in the efficacy of environmental governance mechanisms. … we are clearly of the view that the authorities, in the present case, have acted in violation of the provisions contained in Para 2 of the notification dated 14 September 2006 by carrying out an extensive clearance at the site even in the absence of an Environmental Clearance”, it held.

The Court also noted that the decision on whether an airport is situated at a particular place is a matter of policy, however, when the law prescribes specific norms for carrying out activities requiring an Environmental Clearance, those provisions have to be strictly complied with.

“Setting up an airport is specifically within the ambit of Entry 7 of the Schedule to the notification dated 14 September 2006. Admittedly, no Environmental clearance has been issued till date. Development has to be in conformity with environmental standards prescribed by the law”, it concluded.

The Court, therefore, directed that absolutely no activity shall be carried out in breach of the provisions of the government notification at the site of the proposed greenfield airport at Silchar.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the NGT.

Cause Title- Tapas Guha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 399)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Prashant Bhushan and Advocate Ria Yadav.

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior AAG Nalin Kohli, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, Advocate General Devajit Saikia, Advocates Raghav Shankar, Karan Lahiri, AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Advocates Aagam Kaur, Yamini Singh, Kartikey, Ravi Shankar Pandey, Aditya Dixit, AOR Shuvodeep Roy, Advocates Saurabh Tripathi, Sumit Kumar, Rukmini Barua, Padmini Barua, Debadutta Kanungo, Alice Raj, and AOR Rahul Gupta.

Click here to read/download the Judgment