VANASHAKTI versus UNION OF INDIA (05/08/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

A writ petition under Article 32 challenging the MoEF&CC notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29.01.2025 (amending the EIA Notification, 2006) and the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 was partly allowed. The Court held on a literal reading that the General Conditions never applied to building, construction, township and area development projects in Entries 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule, so appraisal by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority was rightly continued and the notification was upheld, but Note 1 to Entry 8(a), exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels for educational institutions, was arbitrary and quashed.

Issues

Whether the General Conditions of the EIA Notification, 2006 (requiring projects within a specified distance of protected areas, critically polluted areas, eco-sensitive areas and State or international boundaries to be appraised by the MoEF&CC rather than the SEIAA) ever applied to projects under Entries 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule, such that the 2025 notification diluted the regime.
Whether the 2025 notification had the effect of nullifying the judgments of the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal and the Delhi High Court on the 2014, 2016 and 2018 notifications, or suffered from suppression of those decisions.
Whether the Court should defer decision pending the judgment of a coordinate Bench in the appeal against the NGT's decision.
Whether Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of the 2025 notification, excluding industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels for educational institutions from the requirement of prior environmental clearance, was valid.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 extending the 2025 notification to the State of Kerala was valid.

Provisions considered

Schedule, Entries 8(a) and 8(b), column 5, and the General Conditions, Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986)The Schedule has five columns, the fifth stating the conditions applicable; wherever the delegated legislation intended the General Conditions to apply (Entries 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 4(b), 4(d), 4(f), 5(d) to 5(j), 6(b), 7(c) to 7(i)) column 5 says so expressly. Entries 8(a) and 8(b) never carried the General Conditions from 2006 onwards; applying the literal rule, those projects were always for appraisal by the SEIAA. Paragraph 3 of the notification also prescribes the SEIAA's expert composition. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 37)
Entry 8(a) and 8(b), including Note 1 and Note 2 to Entry 8(a), Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29.01.2025 issued by the MoEF&CC amending the EIA Notification, 2006The notification retains the 2006 thresholds (20,000 to 1,50,000 sq m built-up area; 50 ha or 1,50,000 sq m for townships), defines 'built up area' to cure the ambiguity noticed in In Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, and expressly states that General Conditions shall not apply; it was upheld. Note 1, exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels for educational institutions, bears no rational nexus to the object of the Environment (Protection) Act and was quashed as arbitrary. (¶¶ 19, 24, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46)
Section 3 and the statutory status of the SEIAA, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The SEIAA is a statutory body of experts constituted by the Central Government under the Act and cannot be equated with a municipal-level Environmental Cell; being better equipped than the MoEF&CC to assess projects in the respective States, there is no reason it should not appraise Entry 8 proposals if properly constituted. The Note 1 exemption was found out of tune with the purpose of the Act. (¶¶ 22, 35, 36, 40)
Clarification extending the 2025 notification to the State of Kerala, Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 issued by the MoEF&CCThe O.M. merely clarifies that the 2025 notification also applies to Kerala; far from being adverse to environmental interests it makes the conditions applicable there, and was upheld. (¶¶ 44, 45, 47)

Held

In interpreting any legislation, including subordinate legislation, the literal rule is the first principle. Read literally, the EIA Notification, 2006 never made the General Conditions applicable to Entries 8(a) and 8(b): wherever the delegated legislation wanted the General Conditions to apply, column 5 of the Schedule said so specifically, and it does not do so for Entry 8. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 26, 27)
The earlier decisions relied on by the petitioner did not decide the present issue: the Kerala High Court quashed the 2014 notification on a technical procedural ground; the NGT's 2017 judgment set aside only the Environmental Cell provisions, the exclusion of consents under the Water and Air Acts and Appendix XVI of the 2016 notification; the Delhi High Court's 2018 stay concerned an increase of thresholds which the 2025 notification does not replicate; and the NGT's judgment of 09.08.2024 misread the 2006 notification and did not have the benefit of the 2025 notification. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28)
There was no reason to keep the matter pending to await the coordinate Bench, since the validity of the 2025 notification was not before that Bench. (¶¶ 29, 30)
Courts have consistently protected the environment on the footing that natural resources are held in trust for future generations, while equally recognising the need for development; the principle of sustainable development requires that development proceed with precautions to cause the least damage and with mitigation and compensatory measures. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34)
The MoEF&CC cannot itself consider projects from every State; the SEIAA, a statutory expert body constituted by the Central Government with the composition prescribed in paragraph 3 of the 2006 notification, is better equipped to study the environmental impact of projects in its State, and there is no reason why a properly constituted SEIAA should not consider Entry 8 proposals. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
Any construction exceeding 20,000 sq m affects the environment and ecology whether or not it is an industrial shed or an educational building; the guidelines offered for such buildings provide no impact assessment by an expert body like the SEIAA, education has become a thriving industry, and there is no rational nexus between excluding such buildings and the object of the notification. Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of the 2025 notification is therefore arbitrary and is quashed. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 46)
The Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025, which only clarifies that the 2025 notification applies to Kerala as well, is conducive rather than adverse to environmental interests and is upheld. (¶¶ 44, 45)

Result

Writ petition partly allowed. Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29.01.2025 upheld except Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which is quashed and set aside; Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 upheld; no order as to costs. Applications for impleadment/intervention and pending applications disposed of.