Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by Auroville Foundation against the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’), wherein the NGT prohibited the Foundation from proceeding with the construction of two roads in its township on the grounds of environmental harm., the division bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., held that no substantial question relating to the environment had arisen, nor was there any alleged violation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT Act’). Consequently, the Tribunal had committed a gross error in assuming jurisdiction and issuing directions that were legally untenable. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order.
Background
The respondents filed an application before NGT, raising concerns over the Auroville Foundation’s large-scale tree cutting. They argued that the Master Plan for Auroville, originally envisioned by the ‘Mother’ and approved by the Governing Board in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly, led to the creation of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025, which was approved by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in 2001. The respondents claimed that the Foundation’s focus on developing roads mentioned in the Master Plan, particularly the Crown Road and outer ring road, was threatening the Darkali Forest, with large machinery potentially causing environmental harm.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 10-12-2021, issued an interim order prohibiting the Auroville Foundation from cutting any further trees until the next hearing, which was later extended until the case’s final disposal.
NGT, assuming jurisdiction, observed that the case involved a substantial question of alleged violations of environmental laws in the implementation of the project, thus making the Application maintainable. The Tribunal disagreed with the MoEF&CC position that the project fell within the exempted category under the 2004 EIA Notification and did not require Environmental Clearance. The Tribunal ruled that any further activities by the Foundation could only proceed after obtaining the necessary prior Environmental Clearance.
Regarding the disputed Crown Road, the Tribunal noted that the major portion had already been completed, with only a small section remaining. It stated that not allowing the completion of the road would cause hardship to the Foundation.
On the issue of whether the area in question could be considered a Forest, the Tribunal concluded that it could not, as none of the government documents treated it as a Forest. It was, in fact, a man-made plantation of certain species. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the area did not fall under the definition of “Forest” for the purposes of obtaining clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Aggrieved, the Foundation filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the statutory provisions of the NGT Act, and noted that for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal under Section 14 of NGT Act, it has to be shown that:
(1) a substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is involved; and
(2) such questions arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
After referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781, the Court observed that every question or dispute raised by an Applicant before the Tribunal pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a substantial question. It has to be a substantial question relating to environment as contemplated in Section 2(1)(m), and such substantial question must arise out of the implementation of any of the enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I.
The Court noted that the respondents had only raised general allegations regarding the destruction of the Darkali Forest due to the construction of the roads, without providing any specific evidence of violations of the relevant enactments listed in Schedule I. The Court emphasized that the primary issue at hand was whether the construction of these roads, particularly the Crown Road and the Outer Ring Road, would result in significant environmental harm, particularly to the Darkali Forest. However, the Court also highlighted that the respondents did not provide detailed allegations of statutory violations beyond the claim of the area being treated as a deemed forest under the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 1 (1997) 2 SCC 267.
The Court observed that the NGT had expressly rejected the respondents’ allegations that the area in question could not be classified as a forest and did not require clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act. Nevertheless, the NGT proceeded to apply the “Precautionary Principle.”
The Court opined that NGT had completely misdirected itself by overstepping the limited scope of judicial review under the pretext of applying the “Precautionary Principle” in extraordinary circumstances. It further said that NGT had improperly interfered with the implementation of the Master Plan, which had already been approved by the competent authority in 2001.
The Court held that, having been approved by the competent authority as far back as 2001, the Master Plan had attained statutory force and finality.
The Court remarked that “There are about more than 2000 substantial constructions/ developments, which have taken place in Auroville since then till this date. The construction of roads as mentioned in the said approved Master Plan including the Crown Road, a Road encircling the Centre of the Township and an outer Ring Road, being on the verge of completion, except few patches, which could not be completed because of the obstructions caused by the disgruntled Residents like the Respondents”.
The Court found that the Tribunal had thoroughly misdirected itself by directing the Foundation to prepare a fresh Township Plan, despite the existence of the duly approved Master Plan.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the significance of the Auroville Foundation Act, a special legislation enacted to facilitate the acquisition and transfer of Auroville’s undertakings, vest them in a designated foundation, and ensure the long-term management and development of Auroville in accordance with its original charter. Section 27 of the Act grants it an overriding effect over any inconsistent provision in any other law, legal instrument, or order issued by a court, tribunal, or authority. Hence, the Court held that, given the statutory supremacy of the Auroville Foundation Act, the impugned direction issued by the NGT, lacking jurisdiction under the limitations prescribed in Section 14 of the NGT Act, was legally untenable.
The Court stressed that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the impugned directions under the pretext of exceptional circumstances and the application of the Precautionary Principle.
The Court noted that MoEF&CC, in its affidavit before the Tribunal, had explicitly clarified that the Auroville Township Project had been under construction long before the Environment Impact Assessment (‘EIA’) Notification, 1994 and its amendment in 2004. Consequently, the project could not be considered a new project under the 2004 Notification. Furthermore, the Ministry had stated that there was no change in the scope of the Township Project from the Original Master Plan and, therefore, the project was not subject to the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, and its amendments concerning the requirement of Environmental Clearance.
The Court stated that despite this clear position taken by MoEF&CC, the Tribunal, without any supporting material on record, disregarded the Ministry’s affidavit. It erroneously held that any further activity by the Foundation could only proceed after obtaining prior Environmental Clearance. Additionally, the Tribunal appointed a Joint Committee to inspect the area and assess whether the width of the road could be reduced at certain points to minimize the number of trees cut. The Court found that such directions clearly exceeded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, particularly in the absence of any substantial environmental issue arising from the implementation of an enactment listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Notably, the impugned order failed to specify which provision of which enactment in Schedule I had been violated, further reinforcing the Tribunal’s overreach in the matter.
Regurgitating the law developed so far on the protection of environment, the Court emphasised that “though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” are part of the environmental law of the country, it is equally true that while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority under fundamental rights particularly under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is therefore a need for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment”.
Therefore, the Court held that in the present case, no substantial question relating to the environment had arisen, nor was there any alleged violation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Consequently, the Tribunal committed a gross error in assuming jurisdiction and issuing directions that were legally untenable. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the NGT.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Prasanna B. Varale, J.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
