Supreme Court: There’s Need For ‘Sustainable Development’ Harmonising & Striking Golden Balance Between Right To Development & Clean Environment
|The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals of the Auroville Foundation against the Judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai.
The Supreme Court has emphasised that there is a need for ‘Sustainable Development’ harmonising and striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment.
The Court emphasised thus in Civil Appeals filed by the Auroville Foundation against the Judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “Though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” are part of the environmental law of the country, it is equally true that while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority under fundamental rights particularly under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is therefore a need for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment.”
The Bench noted that ‘Sustainable Development’ has been accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life, while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.
AOR Balaji Srinivasan represented the Appellant while AOR T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The project Auroville was legally started as the project of a charitable organization, “The Sri Aurobindo Society” in Pondicherry, which was created to diffuse Sri Aurobindo’s thoughts. In 1991, the Government of India notified the Constitution of Auroville Foundation as a statutory body and at present is under the realm of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) as the Central Government undertaking. In 2021, the Respondents filed an Application before the Tribunal, raising a grievance regarding the cutting of large number of trees by the Appellant-Auroville Foundation, alleging that the Master Plan for Auroville as envisaged by the ‘Mother’ was approved by the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly, and it further led to preparation of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025, which was approved by the Ministry of Human Resources Development in 2001.
It was alleged that the Appellant was focusing on the manifestation of the roads mentioned in the Master Plan e.g. the Crown Road, a road encircling the centre of the Township, and the outer ring road, and was intending to distract Darkali Forest by using huge machineries causing deterioration to the environment. As per the Respondents, the said lands were entitled to the protection. The Tribunal initially granted an interim order directing the Appellant not to cut any further trees till the next date of hearing and the said order was extended till the final disposal of the case. The NGT held that Auroville would not come under the definition of ‘Forest’ for the purposes of obtaining clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The NGT also applied the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and issued certain directions. This was assailed by the Appellant before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “In our opinion, the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself by entering into the restricted domain of judicial review under the guise of applying “Precautionary Principle” in extraordinary circumstances, and in interfering with the implementation of Master Plan which was already approved by the competent Authority way back in the year 2001.”
The Court added that impugned direction issued by the Tribunal without any jurisdiction as circumscribed under Section 14 of the NGT Act, would not be tenable at law.
“The Tribunal has also travelled beyond its jurisdiction in giving the impugned directions under the guise of exceptional circumstances applying the “Precautionary Principle”, it further noted.
The Court reiterated that the traditional concept that Development and Ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.
“Sustainable Development” as defined by Brundtland Report means “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.” The “Sustainable Development” therefore has been held to be a balancing concept between Ecology and Development as a part of the customary international law”, it also remarked.
The Court, therefore, concluded that in this case, no substantial question relating to environment had arisen, nor violation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule-I was alleged and that the Tribunal committed gross error in assuming the jurisdiction and giving directions untenable in law.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and quashed the NGT’s Orders.
Cause Title- The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 347)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Balaji Srinivasan and Advocate Vaibhav Venkatesh.
Respondents: AORs T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ajay Marwah, Vikas Mehta, Advocates A Yogeswaran, and M.V. Swaroop.