Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the requirement of a fresh rapid environmental impact assessment for Bengaluru’s Peripheral Ring Road. The project required prior environmental clearance as an expressway commenced after the 2006 notification. Clearance based on expired terms of reference, outdated data, deficient disclosures and an inadequately reasoned expert appraisal could not stand. The Court prescribed fresh assessment, clearances and appraisal, with any resulting grievance reserved for the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the project commenced before the 2006 EIA notification and whether an expressway fell within its scope.
- Whether expired terms of reference, old data and additional limited sampling supported environmental clearance.
- Whether deficient disclosures and expert appraisal vitiated clearance and what remedial process was required.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17, 18 and 19, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976Identification of the project site for this purpose followed government sanction and the final notification, rather than the preliminary notification. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 18, 19)
- Paragraph 2; Schedule item 7(f), as amended in 2009, Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006Required prior clearance for the expressway; the clarification that highways include expressways operated retrospectively. (¶¶ 21, 25, 27, 29, 34)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaSupported directions for fresh assessment, statutory compliance and expert appraisal. (¶¶ 83, 84)
Held
- The preliminary acquisition notification did not mark commencement for this purpose. The final notification of 29 June 2007 followed government sanction, making the 2006 notification applicable. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The 2009 clarification that highways include expressways was retrospective. The road’s controlled access, high-speed design, interchanges and toll facilities established it as an expressway requiring prior clearance, notwithstanding the absence of a highway notification under the highway statutes. (¶¶ 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- The terms of reference expired before the public hearing and final report. Limited fresh samples furnished in response to queries could not cure an assessment founded on expired terms and outdated primary data; a fresh process was required under the applicable memoranda. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52)
- The consultant lacked highway-sector accreditation when the final report was prepared. Contradictory forest-land disclosures, failure to follow the forest-clearance procedure, and serious understatement of tree felling were material defects; an undertaking of alternative afforestation did not substitute for statutory compliance. (¶¶ 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68)
- The expert committee had to scrutinise the materials and give specific, cogent reasons. Merely accepting the project proponent’s responses without reasoned appraisal vitiated both the process and its outcome. (¶¶ 71, 72, 73, 76, 80, 81, 82)
- A fresh rapid assessment must use a sector-accredited consultant, address the identified deficiencies and current environment, and secure requisite clearances before expert consideration. Fresh reasoned appraisal and appropriate conditions were required, with consultation to protect petroleum pipelines. Any grievance against the resulting decision was reserved for the Supreme Court, excluding other courts and tribunals. (¶¶ 83, 84)
Result
Appeal disposed of without costs. The NGT direction for fresh rapid EIA upheld for the Supreme Court’s reasons, with further directions governing assessment, clearances, appraisal and subsequent challenge.