Tag: sustainable development

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance
Supreme Court

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that a valid District Survey Report (DSR), prepared under the EIA Notification, 2016, is mandatory for granting environmental clearance for sand mining. The Supreme Court held that a DSR is legally untenable without a scientific replenishment study, as it forms the foundational basis for determining sustainable extraction limits and ensuring ecological balance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for sand mining in three blocks on the Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu & Kashmir. The project proponent, contracted by the National Highway Authority of India for a Srinagar ring road, applied for the EC. Initially, the J&K Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) rejected the proposal in January 2022, citing ...
Supreme Court Orders End to ‘Forced Labour’ in Matheran, Directs Rehabilitation Scheme
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders End to ‘Forced Labour’ in Matheran, Directs Rehabilitation Scheme

The Supreme Court prohibited hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran, declaring the practice a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution as it constitutes forced labour and offends human dignity. It directed the state to rehabilitate pullers by providing e-rickshaws through a welfare scheme, balancing ecological concerns with the constitutional mandate of social and economic justice. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the eco-sensitive hill station of Matheran in Maharashtra, renowned as a pedestrian-only zone. The primary issues involved whether paver blocks could be laid on the main road to prevent soil erosion and if hand-pulled rickshaws, a long-standing mode of transport, could be replaced with battery-operated e-rickshaws. The state government and the Matheran Municipal Council...
Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings

The Supreme Court upheld the 2025 EIA Notification, ruling that General Conditions under the 2006 Notification never applied to building and township projects. It affirmed that State-level expert bodies (SEIAA) are competent to appraise such projects. However, the exemption for industrial and educational constructions was struck down as arbitrary. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the notification dated 29th January 2025 and an Office Memorandum dated 30th January 2025, both issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The petitioner, an environmental organization, argued that the new notification fundamentally diluted the environmental regulatory regime established by the original 2006 EIA Notification. The ...
Supreme Court Empowers Pollution Boards to Levy Environmental Damages
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Empowers Pollution Boards to Levy Environmental Damages

The Supreme Court held that Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages, including ex-ante bank guarantees, under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts. This power is distinct from punitive penalties and is grounded in the 'Polluter Pays' principle to remediate environmental damage. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) issued show cause notices in 2006 to multiple entities, including residential and commercial complexes, for operating without the mandatory "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As a condition for granting consent, the DPCC demanded the payment of fixed sums a...
Balancing Ecology & Development : Supreme Court’s Verdict on Mumbai’s Khajuria Lake Case
Supreme Court

Balancing Ecology & Development : Supreme Court’s Verdict on Mumbai’s Khajuria Lake Case

The Supreme Court, overturning a High Court order, ruled that restoring a demolished lake to its original state was not feasible given the passage of time and the establishment of a public park. The Court balanced environmental conservation with public welfare, emphasizing that the public trust doctrine must consider practical realities. It directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to maintain the park, explore alternative water bodies, and restore other deteriorated water bodies. Facts Of The Case: The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) undertook a redevelopment project on a plot (CTS No. 417) at Khajuria Tank Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, for a theme park. This project allegedly led to the obliteration of a lake that had existed at the premises for app...
Chandigarh High Court Gets Parking Upgrade: Supreme Court Approves Eco-Friendly Green Pavers
Supreme Court

Chandigarh High Court Gets Parking Upgrade: Supreme Court Approves Eco-Friendly Green Pavers

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's directions for constructing a verandah at Chandigarh's High Court (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) and laying green paver blocks in a parking area, emphasizing sustainable development over strict adherence to heritage guidelines in this context. The Court found the verandah would not significantly impact the site's "Outstanding Universal Value" and the pavers were an eco-friendly solution for parking shortages. Contempt proceedings against the Chandigarh Administration were abated for twelve weeks to allow compliance. Facts Of The Case: The Chandigarh Administration (CA) appealed against orders issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in a public interest litigation. The High Court had issued a writ of mandamus on November 29, 2...
Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case

The Supreme Court held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for wilfully disobeying its 1996 order prohibiting tree felling in the Delhi Ridge and for concealing this action from the court. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines the Rule of Law, necessitating remedial measures to purge the contempt. Facts Of The Case: This contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India stems from the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) alleged wilful disobedience of the Court's 1996 order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which mandated the preservation of the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge. The DDA sought approval for constructing approach roads to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), entailin...
Shelter vs. Forest: Supreme Court’s Solution for Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungle Dispute
Supreme Court

Shelter vs. Forest: Supreme Court’s Solution for Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungle Dispute

The Supreme Court affirmed 'Zudpi Jungle' as forest, but allowed pre-1996 non-forestry regularization without NPV or compensatory afforestation. It mandated strict action for post-1996 diversions, declared fragmented Zudpi lands 'Protected Forests,' and ordered transfers to the Forest Department, with conditions for using Zudpi land for compensatory afforestation. Facts Of The Case: This case revolves around the legal status and utilization of "Zudpi Jungle" lands in six districts of Eastern Vidarbha, Maharashtra. Historically, these lands, characterized by bushy growth and inferior soil, were recorded as "Zudpi Forest" or "Scrub Jungle" in revenue records since the early 1900s, often used for grazing and domestic needs. Due to bureaucratic inaction and state reorganization in 1956, thes...
Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...
“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...