Summary
The Supreme Court suspended the Mopa airport environmental clearance and directed expert reconsideration after finding serious disclosure, assessment, consultation and appraisal failures. The project proponent had not candidly disclosed surrounding ecological features or the extent of tree felling. The EAC’s reasons were perfunctory and the NGT failed to conduct a merits review. The Court required time-bound reconsideration and a report back to itself, rather than permanently prohibiting the airport project.
Issues
- What disclosures and environmental appraisal the 2006 notification required.
- Whether consultation and expert reasons met the required standard.
- Whether the NGT discharged its appellate function.
- What corrective directions appropriately balanced infrastructure and environmental protection.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 8(vi), Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006Material concealment or false or misleading information makes the application liable to rejection and an existing clearance liable to cancellation after hearing; stressed the essential role of full disclosure in Form 1. (¶¶ 60, 67–77, 113)
- Section 16(h), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Appellate jurisdiction required an independent merits review of the environmental-clearance challenge, rather than mere deference to expert recommendations. (¶¶ 117–125, 144)
Held
- Form 1 is foundational to scoping and the terms of reference. Full, candid disclosure of ecological features is mandatory; later references in the EIA do not justify bypassing the initial scrutiny. Forest disclosure was not confined to formally notified reserved forests. (¶¶ 58–60, 67–77)
- Assessment had to consider ecologically sensitive areas within the study area, not merely whether the project site itself was sensitive. Faunal data and tree-felling disclosures were deficient. The Court accepted that Goa-based air and noise monitoring could cover the relevant cross-border study area, while identifying separate drainage-study deficiencies. (¶ 78–99)
- Public consultation requires meaningful consideration and fair transmission of environmental concerns. Reducing the objections to employment issues was inadequate. The EAC had to independently scrutinise the material and give expert reasons; generic public-interest assertions and replies to individual objections did not discharge that duty. (¶ 100–116)
- The NGT’s cursory endorsement failed to fulfil its merits-review function. Omission of vital material and legally required procedures raised substantial questions of law permitting Supreme Court intervention, rather than mere factual reappraisal. (¶ 117–125)
- Environmental rule of law requires transparent, accountable and participatory decision making. The Court balanced the airport’s public importance with ecological protection by suspending clearance, requiring EAC reconsideration within one month and reserving further orders on the resulting report to itself. (¶ 140–147)
Result
Principal appeal allowed without costs; companion disposed of on the same terms. Clearance suspended pending EAC reconsideration within one month of receipt of the certified order. State/MoEFCC permitted to place the report before the Supreme Court for further orders; other courts and tribunals barred from entertaining a challenge to that report.