Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order Directing Environment Ministry To Ensure That All Building & Construction Projects Within 5 Km Be Treated As ‘Category A’

The Supreme Court has upheld the 2024 Order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of concerned categories shall be treated as ‘Category A’ projects.

The Apellants being Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI), Godrej Properties Ltd., and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd. filed Appeals before the Court, challenging Final Order of the NGT, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “We are in full agreement with the view so taken by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025. In consequence, the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 of the NGT, on the basis of which the 2025 Notification was subsequently issued and which has been upheld by this Court, does not survive for consideration. The 2025 Notification, excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a), presently holds the field.”

Senior Advocates Devdutt Kamat, Mukul Rohtagi, and Atmaram Nadkarni represented the Appellants while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave and Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The Appellants in this case filed Appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010. The Appeals assailed the Final Order dated August 9, 2024 passed by the NGT, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in an Original Application. By the said Order, the NGT allowed the Original Application and directed the MoEF&CC to ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of the following categories –

(i) protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,

(ii) critically polluted areas and severely polluted areas identified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),

(iii) eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and

(iv) inter-state boundaries

shall be treated as ‘Category A’ projects and appraised at the Central Level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). The Ministry was further directed either to strictly implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2006 (EIA 2006 Notification), or to issue a clarificatory notification. In arriving at its conclusion, the NGT held that –

(i) The “General Conditions” under the EIA 2006 Notification are applicable to projects and activities covered under item 8(a) – Building and Construction Projects, and item 8(b) – Township and Area Development Projects of the Schedule thereto; and

(ii) The Notification dated 22.12.2014 issued by MoEF&CC (EIA 2014 Notification), inserting a Note under items 8(a) and 8(b) excluding the applicability of the General Conditions, stood quashed by Judgment dated 06.03.2024 of the High Court of Kerala in One Earth One Life v. MoEF. Consequently, the General Conditions now stand revived and are applicable to projects and activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA 2006 Notification.

Although the Appellants were not parties before the NGT, they were directly and substantially affected by the impugned Order, as the findings and directions therein had an adverse bearing on their ongoing and proposed real estate projects, resulting in indefinite delays in execution and completion. The Appellants, therefore, invoking their statutory right of Appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act, approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, observed, “Notably, the latest notification dated 29.01.2025 was issued by Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the order impugned in these appeals. The said Notification, together with the consequential official Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025. By order dated 05.08.2025, this Court partly allowed the writ petition by upholding the Notification and the Office Memorandum, save and except Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which was struck down. The decision so rendered has a direct bearing on the present appeals.”

The Court was of the view that since the issues raised herein already stand adjudicated, it is neither necessary nor proper to re-examine them afresh and in the interest of judicial propriety, therefore, the Appeals must be disposed of.

“In the order dated 05.08.2025, this Court had already taken note of the pendency of the present appeals. It was the categorical stand of Respondent No. 1 therein that, from inception, the General Conditions were never made applicable to the projects or activities covered under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule to the EIA 2006 Notification; and wherever their application was intended, Column 5 of the Schedule expressly so provided. It was further submitted that the 2025 Notification was issued in the backdrop of this Court’s decision in Okhla Bird Sanctuary, wherein, it had been observed that General Conditions were inapplicable to Entries 8(a) and 8(b), though certain clarifications were required to put the controversy at rest”, it noted.

The Court said that a plain reading of the 2006 Notification revealed that the General Conditions were never attracted to projects falling under Items 8(a) and 8(b).

“While reaffirming the consistent approach of courts in protecting the environment and safeguarding natural resources as trustees for future generations, the Court emphasized the necessity of balancing such concerns with the principle of sustainable development”, it further noted.

Conclusion

The Court also said that it was held that the SEIAA, being an expert body constituted by the Central Government, was best suited to assess the environmental impact of projects within the respective States and Union Territories.

“Accordingly, while upholding the 2025 Notification, this Court set aside Note 1 in Column 5 of Item 8(a), holding that the exclusion of projects such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions was inconsistent with the object and scheme of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. With respect to the OM dated 30.01.2025, it was further held that the 2025 Notification would apply to the State of Kerala as well. Thus, the 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the OM dated 30.01.2025 were upheld, and the writ petition was allowed in part”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and refused to interfere in the NGT’s Order.

Cause Title- Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1112)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Devdutt Kamat, Mukul Rohtagi, Atmaram Nadkarni, AORs Pai Amit, E. C. Agrawal, Advocates Pushpa Ganediwala, Nikhil Pahwa, Abhiyudaya Vats, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Kapil Madan, Devansh Srivastava, Samit Shukla, Saakshi Saboo, Keshav Sehgal, and Vaibhavi Bhalerao.

Respondents: ASG Archana Pathak Dave, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, AORs Vanshdeep Dalmia, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Avijit Roy, Somanatha Padhan, Bhushan Mahendra Oza, Advocates Anisha Jain, Shambhavi Singh, Sharmishtha Shukla, Swarupma Chaturvedi, Shraddha Deshmukh, Shurya Rai, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Kunal Cheema, Akash Kakade, Sonam Mhatre, Sakshi Mehta, Swetab Kumar, Siddharth Sharma, Amber Dwivedi, Kuldeep Sharma, and Himanshu Nayyar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment