Not Possible For Ministry Of Environment To Consider Projects From All States Of Country: Supreme Court Upholds 2025 Office Memorandum

The Supreme Court while upholding the Office Memorandum dated January 30, 2025 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), observed that it is not possible for the said Ministry to consider projects from all States of the country.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the notification dated January 29, 2025 as well as the aforementioned Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF&CC.

The two-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “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 territory.”

The Bench clarified 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.

Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and P.V. Dinesh appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, and Atmaram Nadkarni appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Brief Facts

Senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned notification totally changes the regime, which was provided by the notification dated September 14, 2006 issued by the Ministry. It was further submitted that the Union of India has been making consistent efforts to dilute the provisions contained in the 2006 notification by issuing notifications dated December 22, 2014, December 9, 2016, and November 14 & 15, 2018. The 2014 notification was quashed and set aside by the Kerala High Court in 2024 and the 2016 notification was quashed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in 2017. The 2018 notification has been stayed by the Delhi High Court in 2018. It was also submitted that the 2025 notification does not refer to the NGT’s Judgment and hence, the same suffers from suppression of material facts. Under the 2006 notification, the General Conditions were applicable to the projects covered under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. Under General Conditions, any project or activity within 10 kms. from the boundary of:

(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 (SEIAA).

The said restriction of 10 kms., has been subsequently brought down to 5 kms., by a subsequent notification. On the other hand, it was submitted by all the counsel for the Respondent 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.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “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.”

The Court said that insofar as the projects/activities at Entries 8(a) and 8(b) are concerned, General Conditions have not been provided for right from the 2006 notification.

“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. … 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”, it added.

The Court further remarked that 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, they have also consistently taken into consideration the need for developmental activities.

“A country cannot progress unless the development takes place. As such, this Court in a catena of decisions has adopted the principle of sustainable development. … 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”, it observed.

The Court, however, said 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.

“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”, it also noted.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court remarked that no mechanism like the impact assessment to be done by an expert body like SEIAA has been provided in the said guidelines.

“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”, it held.

The Court said 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. … 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”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Writ Petition, upheld the 2025 notification excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a), quashed Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of the 2025 notification, and upheld the 2025 Office Memorandum.

Cause Title- Vanashakti v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 961)

Click here to read/download the Judgment