Vanashakti vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 961 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 166 OF 2025

VANASHAKTI …APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

1. The present petition challenges the notification dated

29th January, 2025 bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by the

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the MoEF&CC’) and the Office

Memorandum dated 30th January, 2025 issued by the

MoEF&CC.

2. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri

P.V. Dinesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Signature Not Verified

intervenor(s), supporting the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.08.12 16:31:50 IST Reason: Page 1 of 25

3. We have also heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned

Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union

of India (MoEF&CC), Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor

General of India appearing for the State of Maharashtra, Shri

Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior

counsel appearing for the intervenor(s) and other learned

counsel.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel,

submits that the impugned notification dated 29th January,

2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned notification’)

totally changes the regime, which was provided by the

notification dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry

of Environment and Forests (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

2006 notification’). Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior

counsel, submits that the Union of India has been making

consistent efforts to dilute the provisions contained in the

2006 notification by issuing notifications dated 22nd

December, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2014

notification’), 9th December, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the 2016 notification’) and 14th and 15th November, 2018

Page 2 of 25 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2018 notification’). It is

submitted that 2014 notification was quashed and set aside

by the High Court of Kerala vide judgment and order dated 6th

March, 2024. Similarly, it is submitted that the 2016

notification issued by the MoEF&CC was quashed and set

aside by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi vide judgment dated 8th December, 2017. He further

submits that the 2018 notification has been stayed by the High

Court of Delhi by an order dated 26th November, 2018.

5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the

preamble of the 2025 notification does not refer to the

judgment of the learned NGT and the order of the Delhi High

Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned

notification suffers from suppression of material facts.

6. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, further

submits that under the 2006 notification, the General

Conditions were applicable to the projects covered under Entry

8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. He submits that under the

General Conditions, any project or activity within 10 kms.

from the boundary of:

Page 3 of 25

(i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection)

Act, 1972,

(ii) Critically polluted areas as identified by the Central

Pollution Control Board from time to time,

(iii) Eco-sensitive areas as notified under Section 3 of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, such as

Mahabaleshwar Panchgani, Matheran, Panchmarhi,

Dahanu, Doon Valley and

(iv) Inter-State boundaries and international boundaries,

are to be examined only by the MoEF&CC and not by the State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short,

‘SEIAA‘). He fairly concedes that the said restriction of 10

kms., has been subsequently brought down to 5 kms., by a

subsequent notification.

7. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, submits

that having failed in its repeated attempts to dilute the

restrictions as provided in 2006 notification, the MoEF&CC

has come with the impugned notification which has the effect

of nullifying the judgments passed by the High Court of Kerala

and the NGT.

Page 4 of 25

8. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, further

submits that the judgment and order passed by the learned

NGT is challenged by way of an appeal before this Court. It is

submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing

the matter at length, on 23rd April, 2025 has reserved the

matter for judgment. He, therefore, submits that as a matter

of propriety this Court should refrain from deciding the issue

in order to avoid any conflicting judgments.

9. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional

Solicitor General of India, submits that right from inception,

the General Conditions were never made applicable to the

projects or activities covered by Entry 8 of the Schedule. She

submits that the perusal of the Schedule of the 2006

notification would show that wherever it was intended that the

General Conditions would apply, it has been specifically

mentioned in column 5 thereof that the General Conditions

would be applicable. She submits that wherever some other

conditions were to be made applicable, column 5 specifically

notes as to what are the conditions which would be applicable

to such activity/project. She submits that, however, in order

Page 5 of 25 to bring clarity and in view of some of the orders passed by the

learned NGT which required the notification to be issued after

following the procedure prescribed by law, the impugned

notification came to be notified.

10. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for

the intervenor(s), submits that the 2025 notification was

brought by the Union of India, in view of the judgment of this

Court in the case of In Re: Construction of Park at Noida

near Okhla Bird Sanctuary1. It is submitted that though

this Court has recorded the submission that for the

activity/project in Entry 8(a) and 8(b) general conditions are

not applicable, this Court has opined that certain clarity needs

to be given to the issues so as to put any controversy at rest.

11. Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior counsel

appearing for the intervenor(s), submits that in Maharashtra

alone 700 projects are pending consideration before SEIAA,

which, on account of stay order granted by this Court could

not be considered.

12. It is submitted by all the counsel for the respondent(s)

1 (2011) 1 SCC 744

Page 6 of 25 that MoEF&CC is not equipped with the machinery to consider

the entire projects from all the State/Union Territories in the

country and therefore the 2006 notification itself provides for

the projects which could be considered by the SEIAA.

13. It is, therefore, submitted that the stay on impugned

notification has caused irreparable damage to the

developmental activities throughout the country, inasmuch as

all the projects stand stalled on account of non-consideration

by SEIAA.

14. For considering the rival submissions, it will be

appropriate to refer to the particulars of the schedule to the

2006 Notification, which is extracted hereinbelow.

“SCHEDULE LIST OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRING PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Project or Activity Category with threshold limit Conditions if any A B (1) Mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation (for a specified production capacity) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

15. It can thus be seen that the Schedule has five columns.

In the first column, serial number of the project or activity is

Page 7 of 25 mentioned. In the second column the details of the activity

are mentioned. In the third column the projects which are

approved by the MoEF&CC are mentioned. In the fourth

column, the projects which are approved by the SEIAA are

mentioned and the fifth and the last column deals with the

conditions, if any, which would be applicable.

16. The projects with which we are concerned in the present

lis are at Entry 8 of the Schedule, which reads thus:-

Project or Activity Category with threshold Conditions if any limit A B

(1) Mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation (for a specified production capacity) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

8 Building/Construction projects/Area Development projects and Townships 8(a) Building and >20000 sq. #(built up area for Construction mtrs and covered projects <1,50,000 construction; in sq.mtrs. of the case of built-up area# facilities open to the sky, it will be the activity area) 8(b) Townships Covering an ++All projects and Area area > 50 ha under item Development and or built up 8(b) shall be projects area appraised as >1,50,000 sq. Category B1 mtrs++

Page 8 of 25

17. If we compare column 5 of Entry 8 to Entry 1(a) which

deals with mining of minerals and slurry pipelines (coal lignite

and other ores) passing through national

parks/sanctuaries/coral reefs/ecologically sensitive areas,

Entry 1(c) which deals with river-valley projects, Entry 1(d)

which deals with the Thermal Power Plants, Entry 2(a) which

deals with Coal washeries, Entry 2(b) which deals with Mineral

beneficiation, Entry 3(a) which deals with Metallurgical

industries (ferrous & non-ferrous), Entry 3(b) which deals with

Cement plants, Entry 4(b) which deals with Coke oven plants,

Entry 4(d) which deals with Choir-alkali industry, Entry 4(f)

which deals with Leather/skin/hide processing industry,

Entry 5(d) which deals with manmade fibers manufacturing,

Entry 5(e) which deals with petrochemical based processing,

Entry 5(f) which deals with synthetic organic chemicals

industry, Entry 5(g) which deals with distilleries, Entry 5(h)

which deals with integrated paint industry, Entry 5 (i) which

deals with pulp & paper industry, Entry 5(j) which deals with

sugar industry, Entry 6(b) which deals with isolated storage

Page 9 of 25 and handling of hazardous chemicals, Entry 7(c) which deals

with industrial estates/parks, complexes/areas, Export

Processing Zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs),

Biotech parks, leather complexes, Entry 7(d) which deals with

common hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal

facilities, Entry 7(e) which deals with ports, harbours, break

waters, dredging, Entry 7(f) which deals with highways, Entry

7(g) which deals with Aerial ropeways, Entry 7(h) which deals

with common effluent treatment plants, Entry 7(i) which deals

with common municipal solid waste management facility,

column 5 specifically provides that General Conditions shall

apply.

18. It is thus clear that wherever the delegated legislation

required the General Conditions should be applied, the

notification specifically provided for the same.

19. It can clearly be seen that Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the

Schedule do not provide for applicability of General

Conditions, however, they provide for some other conditions

as can be seen from the 2025 notification.

Page 10 of 25 Project and Category with Conditions, if any Activity threshold limit A B (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) “8 Building or Construction projects or Area Development Projects and Townships 8(a) Building and ≥ 20,000 The term “built up area” Construction sq.m. and < for the purpose of this projects 1,50,000 sq. notification is defined as m. of built the built up or covered up area area on all floors put together, including its basement and other service areas, which are proposed in the building or construction projects. Note 1. The projects or activities shall not include industrial shed, school, college, hostel for educational institution, but such buildings shall ensure sustainable environmental management, solid and liquid waste management, rain water harvesting and may use recycled materials such as fly ash bricks. Note 2. “General Conditions” shall not apply. 8(b) Townships Covering an A project of Township and Area area ≥ 50 ha and Area Development Development and/or built Projects covered under Projects up area ≥ this item shall require an 1,50,000 sq. Environment Impact m. Assessment report and be appraised as Category ‘B1’ Project. Note. “General Conditions” shall not apply.

Page 11 of 25

20. Insofar as 2014 notification is concerned, the same, as

fairly accepted by Shri Shankaranarayan, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, was quashed

and set aside by the Kerala High Court on 06th March, 2024 in

WP(C) No. 3097 of 2016 on a technical ground, since the

procedural formalities for publication of the notification was

not found in consonance with the final notification.

21. Insofar as the judgment and order of the learned NGT

dated 08th December, 2017 is concerned, what has been set

aside is (i) clause 14(8) of the 2016 notification which provided

for establishment of the Environmental Cell at the level of

State Governments or local authorities, (ii) the provisions

relating to exclusion of Consent to Operate and Consent to

Establish under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,

1981 in clause 14 of 2016 notification and (iii) Appendix-XVI

to the said notification relating to constitution and functioning

of the said Environmental Cell.

22. It is thus clear that the issue that arises for consideration

in the present lis was not an issue for consideration before the

Page 12 of 25 learned NGT. In any case, the Environmental Cell at the level

of a municipal body cannot be equated with SEIAA, which is a

statutory body constituted by the Central Government under

a statute namely the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The

learned NGT was, therefore, justified in holding that an

important task of granting environmental clearances cannot

be entrusted to a body at the municipal level. However, at the

cost of repetition, it is observed that the SEIAA is a statutory

body comprising of experts.

23. Insofar as the order dated 26th November, 2018 passed

by the Delhi High Court granting stay is concerned, the said

order considered the 2018 notifications dated 14th and 15th

November, 2018 vide which the area of 20,000 sq.mtr., was

increased to 50,000 sq.mtr for Building or Construction

projects or Area Development projects and Townships and

from 20,000 sq.mtr to 1,50,000 sq.mtr for industrial sheds,

educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational

institutions.

24. By the impugned notification, however, there is no

variation with regard to the built-up area of 20,000 sq.mtr.

Page 13 of 25 and 1,50,000 sq.mtr for Building and Construction projects

and with regard to Townships and Area Development projects

having an area of 50 ha. to 1,50,000 sq.mtr which was

provided in the 2006 notification.

25. Insofar as the second judgment of the learned NGT dated

9th August, 2024 is concerned, no doubt that the learned

members of the NGT have referred to the General Conditions,

we, however, find that the learned NGT has not considered the

2006 notification in its correct perspective.

26. It is a settled principle of law that while interpreting any

legislation including a subordinate legislation, the first

principle that has to be adopted is the literal rule of

interpretation. Applying literal interpretation to the 2006

notification, it would be clear that said notification does not

provide for applicability of the General Conditions to projects

in Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. As already observed

hereinabove, wherever the delegated legislation wanted the

General Conditions to be made applicable it has been

specifically provided in column 5 of the projects/activities.

27. At the cost of repetition, we observe that insofar as the

Page 14 of 25 projects/activities at Entries 8(a) and 8(b) are concerned,

General Conditions have not been provided for right from the

2006 notification.

28. It is further to be noted that the judgment dated 09th

August, 2024 passed by the learned NGT did not have the

benefit of considering the 2025 notification.

29. We, therefore, see no reason to accept the request of the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner to keep the present

matter pending in order to await the judgment of the

coordinate Bench.

30. In any case, the validity of 2025 notification is not being

considered by the Coordinate Bench.

31. No doubt that the courts have consistently insisted upon

protecting environment and consistently held that the natural

resources are held in trust by the present generation for the

future generations. However, at the same time, the courts have

also consistently taken into consideration the need for

developmental activities.

32. A country cannot progress unless the development takes

place. As such, this Court in a catena of decisions has adopted

Page 15 of 25 the principle of sustainable development. Some of the notable

decisions of this Court are Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum

v. Union of India and Others2, Jagannath v. Union of

India and Others3, Consumer Education & Research

Society v. Union of India and Others4, Intellectuals

Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others5, Tata

Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga

and Others6 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v.

Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others7.

33. A reference in this respect can also be made to the recent

judgment of this Court rendered In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands8,

wherein all the earlier judgments of this Court have been

considered by a coordinate bench, to which one of us (B.R.

Gavai, CJI.) was a party. It would be apposite to refer to

paragraphs 117, 118 and 119 of the said judgment:

“117. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the balance between environmental protection and the need for 2 (1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996 INSC 952 3 (1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996 INSC 1466 4 (2000) 2 SCC 599 : 2000 INSC 81 5 (2006) 3 SCC 549 : 2006 INSC 101 6 (2020) 15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203 7 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1469 : 2022 INSC 1129 8 2025 INSC 754

Page 16 of 25 sustainable development. It will be apt to refer to paras 87-88 of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469), which read thus:

“87. It cannot be disputed that Section 20 of the NGT Act itself directs the learned Tribunal to apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. Undisputedly, it is the duty of the State as well as its citizens to safeguard the forest of the country. The resources of the present are to be preserved for the future generations. However, one principle cannot be applied in isolation of the other.

88. It is necessary that, while protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration and a proper balance between the two has to be struck.”

118. Much prior to that, this Court, in the case of Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others (1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996 INSC 952, had an occasion to consider the conflict between the development and ecology. This Court observed thus:

“10. The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer

Page 17 of 25 acceptable. “Sustainable Development” is the answer. In the international sphere, “Sustainable Development” as a concept came to be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite shape by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its report called “Our Common Future”. The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report is popularly known as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came out with a document called “Caring for the Earth” which is a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever in the history — deliberating and chalking out a blueprint for the survival of the planet. Among the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity and another on climate change. These conventions were signed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved by consensus three non-binding documents namely, a Statement

Page 18 of 25 on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on environmental policy and development initiatives and Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next century in areas like poverty, population and pollution. During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio “Sustainable Development” has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by the Brundtland Report means “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. We have no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development” as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the international law jurists.”

119. The principle of Sustainable Development as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the Customary International Law by this Court in various judgments including S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996 INSC 1466, Consumer

Page 19 of 25 Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others (2000) 2 SCC 599 : 2000 INSC 81, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549:

2006 INSC 101 and Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok

Jagga (2020) 15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203.”

34. It is thus clear that the courts have taken a view that

while development is permitted to be undertaken, it is also

required that a precaution is needed to be taken so that the

least damage is caused to the environment and ecology. The

courts have also insisted upon the mitigation and

compensatory measures so as to compensate the loss which is

caused to the environment and ecology on account of the

damage that would be caused by the developmental activities.

35. As already submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor

General of India, it is not possible for the MOEF&CC to

consider the projects from all the states of the country. We are

in agreement with the same. In any case, we are of the

considered opinion that the SEIAA is a body of experts

constituted/appointed by the Central Government itself and it

is better equipped to undertake study qua environmental

impact of proposed projects in the respective state/union

Page 20 of 25 territory.

36. We, therefore, see no reason as to why the SEIAA should

not be permitted to consider the proposal pertaining to the

respective States/Union Territories, if it is a properly

constituted body in accordance with the statute.

37. As a matter of fact, the 2006 notification itself provides

for the constitution and appointment of members of SEIAA.

From paragraph 3 of the said notification it can be seen that

the SEIAA consists of three members out of which one shall be

the Member Secretary, who is required to be a serving officer

of the concerned State Government or Union Territory

administration familiar with environmental laws and other two

members shall either be a professional or expert fulfilling the

eligibility criteria given in Appendix VI to the notification; one

of them who is an expert in the Environmental Impact

Assessment process, shall be the Chairman of the SEIAA. The

procedure as to how the SEIAA shall conduct impact

assessment and arrive at a decision is also prescribed under

the said notification.

38. Another reason that is given for issuance of 2025

Page 21 of 25 notification is that the 2006 notification was somewhat

ambiguous with regard to the built up area as was observed

by this Court in the case of In Re: Construction of Park at

Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary.

39. Accordingly, in the 2025 notification, the “built up area”

has been specifically defined to be the built up or covered area

on all floors put together including the basement and other

service areas, which are proposed in the building or

construction project.

40. While we are inclined to uphold the impugned

notification, we are of the considered view that the exemption

of applicability of 2006 notification, by way of Note 1 in column

5 of Entry 8(a) of the impugned notification, to the projects or

activities for industrial shed, school, college and hostel for

educational institution does not appear to be in tune with the

purpose for which the Environment Protection Act has been

enacted.

41. Ms. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor of India, submits

that the detailed guidelines have been provided so as to ensure

that the industrial shed, school, college and hostel for

Page 22 of 25 educational institution shall adhere to the environmental

aspects. Moreover, we find that no mechanism like the impact

assessment to be done by an expert body like SEIAA has been

provided in the said guidelines.

42. It cannot be gainsaid that if any construction activity for

an area of more than 20,000 sq. mtr. is to be carried out, it

will naturally have an effect on the environment and ecology,

even if the building is for industrial shed or for educational

purpose, including hostels etc. There is neither any rational

nexus with the object to be achieved by excluding such

buildings from the rigors of the notification. We, therefore, see

no reason to discriminate the other buildings with the

buildings constructed for industrial or educational purposes.

43. It is by now common knowledge that education is no

more exclusively a service oriented activity and that it has in

fact become a flourishing and thriving industry. We, therefore,

see no reason behind the exemption of 2006 notification to the

industrial or educational buildings by way of Note 1 in Column

5 of the 2025 notification.

44. Insofar as the clarification by O.M. dated 30th January,

Page 23 of 25 2025, is concerned, it only clarifies that the 2025 notification

would also be applicable to the State of Kerala.

45. It can thus be seen that the clarificatory O.M. dated 30th

January, 2025, which has also been impugned in the present

petition, rather than being adverse to the environmental

interest is conducive to the environmental interest, inasmuch

as it also makes the conditions applicable to the State of

Kerala.

46. Therefore, while upholding the impugned notification

dated 29th January, 2025, we hold that Note 1 to Entry 8(a) is

arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside.

47. In the result, we pass the following order:

i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed;

ii. The notification dated 29th January, 2025 excluding

Note 1 to Entry 8(a) is upheld;

iii. Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of the notification dated 29 th

January, 2025 is quashed and set aside;

iv. The O.M. dated 30th January, 2025 issued by the

MoEF&CC is also upheld; and

v. In the facts and circumstances, no orders as to costs.

Page 24 of 25 48. We express our deep appreciation for the valuable

assistance provided by Shri Gopal Sankarnarayanan ably

assisted by Shri Vanshdeep Dalmia, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,

learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Tushar Mehta,

learned Solicitor General of India, Shri Mukul Rohtagi and

Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior counsel.

49. All the applications for impleadment/intervention are

disposed of.

50. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

............................CJI (B.R. GAVAI)

..............................J (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 05, 2025

Page 25 of 25