Summary
The Court struck down the environmental-clearance exemption for extracting ordinary earth for linear projects in item 6 of the 2020 notification and its 2023 amendment. Dispensing with public notice lacked a demonstrated public-interest basis, and the exemption was unguided and arbitrary. Undefined projects, unlimited extraction and inadequate enforceable safeguards defeated the environmental statute’s purpose. The dredging/desilting exemption was outside the adjudicated challenge; the NGT’s directions concerning it remained to be implemented.
Issues
- Whether public notice could be dispensed with without a substantiated public-interest determination.
- Whether the ordinary-earth exemption and its amended safeguards satisfied Article 14.
- Whether the appeals extended to the separate dredging/desilting exemption.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(1) and 3(2)(v), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The power to protect and improve the environment informed the clearance framework. An unguided blanket extraction exemption defeated the Act’s object. (¶¶ 2, 15, 25, 27)
- Rule 5(3) and 5(4), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986Public notice and consideration of objections could be dispensed with only on public-interest grounds. Neither affidavits nor a supporting satisfaction record established such grounds here. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaThe exemption was arbitrary, and the right to a pollution-free environment reinforced the importance of public participation before environmental norms were relaxed. (¶¶ 22, 25, 26, 27)
- Appendix IX, item 6, EIA Notification, 2006, as amended in 2020 and 2023Both the original ordinary-earth exemption for linear projects and its replacement referring to future SOPs and safeguards were quashed. The adjudication did not strike down item 7. (¶¶ 4, 5, 17, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32)
Held
- Rule 5(4) is an exception requiring public interest. The Ministry did not address the pleaded objection to dispensing with public notice, explain its satisfaction in either forum, or produce the relevant decision record. The resulting non-application of mind vitiated the decision-making process. Whether reasons necessarily had to appear in the notification itself was not decided. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 22, 23)
- Citizens are environmental stakeholders, and the objection procedure enables their participation. It cannot be bypassed casually. The Court also found no demonstrated urgency to exempt extraction for linear projects during the nationwide lockdown when such work had halted. (¶¶ 22, 24)
- The 2020 exemption did not define linear projects, limit extraction quantity or area, confine extraction to the project’s actual needs, prescribe excavation processes or identify an authority to determine eligibility. It was an unguided blanket exception violating Article 14. (¶ 25)
- The 2023 amendment did not cure the defects: it left linear projects undefined, imposed no quantity restriction, and did not identify the authority issuing safeguards or provide their enforcement mechanism. The August 2023 office memorandum could not save the arbitrary entry. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- The earlier SOP did not create adequate regulatory machinery or implement the NGT’s required safeguards concerning excavation processes and quantum. The Ministry had also failed to revisit the provision within the NGT’s three-month period. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31)
- The specific challenge concerned item 6. The dredging/desilting provision in item 7 already existed in the unchallenged 2016 notification, so the Court declined to adjudicate its validity. The respondents remained bound to implement the NGT’s directions regarding that entry. (¶¶ 16, 17, 24, 30)
- Item 6 in the notifications dated 28 March 2020 and 30 August 2023 was quashed. The appeals were partly allowed without costs. (¶¶ 32, 33)
Result
Appeals partly allowed without costs. Item 6 of Appendix IX in the 28 March 2020 notification and the 30 August 2023 amendment quashed; item 7’s validity not adjudicated and the NGT directions concerning it left enforceable.