Supreme Court of India
CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (CREDAI)versusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1112
- Decided
- 12 September 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
The General Conditions of the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b); therefore, such projects remain within State‑level appraisal, and the 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) is upheld.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals by CREDAI, Godrej Properties and Sai Sahara Developers challenging a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that applied the General Conditions (GC) of the EIA 2006 Notification to building and construction projects (Item 8(a)) and township projects (Item 8(b)) within 5 km of environmentally sensitive zones, thereby requiring Central-level appraisal. The Court examined the statutory language of the 2006 Notification, the 2014 and 2025 amendments, and the Kerala High Court’s quashing of the 2014 amendment, concluding that the Schedule itself shows that GC never applied to Items 8(a) and 8(b). It upheld the 2025 Notification (which reiterates that GC do not apply) and the accompanying Office Memorandum, while striking down the exclusion of certain educational and industrial structures. Consequently, the NGT order was set aside and the appeals were disposed of, leaving the 2025 Notification as the governing rule.
Issues considered
- Whether the General Conditions under the EIA 2006 Notification apply to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects).
- If the GC apply, whether projects within 5 km of protected, critically polluted, severely polluted, eco‑sensitive or inter‑State areas must be treated as Category A and appraised by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee.
- The validity of the 2025 Notification and its Office Memorandum in light of the Kerala High Court judgment and the earlier NGT order.
- The jurisdiction of the NGT to issue directions of a policy‑making nature under the NGT Act.
Legislation cited
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 3(1), s. 3(2)(v), s. 5
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 14, s. 15, s. 20, s. 22, s. 2(m)
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the General Conditions (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification, are applicable to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects) of the Schedule thereto, and, if so, when situated within 10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of environmentally sensitive areas are required to be appraised as Category A projects by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (Central EAC), rather than being considered by the State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs) and the State/UT
Subjects
CREDAIEIA 2006 NotificationGeneral ConditionsItem 8(a)Building and Construction ProjectsItem 8(b)Township and Area Development Projects5 km bufferEnvironmentally sensitive areasCategory A projectsCentral Expert Appraisal CommitteeState Expert Appraisal CommitteesState/UT Environment Impact Assessment AuthoritiesEnvironmental protectionJudicial proprietyCritically Polluted AreasSeverely Polluted AreasEco‑sensitive zonesInter‑State boundariesOffice MemorandumReal estate development
Judgment
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 94 : 2025 INSC 1112
Confederation of Real Estate Developers
Association of India (CREDAI)
v.
Union of India & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024)
12 September 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the General Conditions (GC) under the EIA 2006
Notification, are applicable to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction
Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects)
of the Schedule thereto, and, if so, whether such projects
when situated within 10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of
environmentally sensitive areas are required to be appraised as
Category A projects by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee
(Central EAC), rather than being considered by the State Expert
Appraisal Committees (SEACs) and the State/UT Environment
Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – NGT allowed
the original application filed by Respondent No.3 holding inter
alia that the GC under the EIA 2006 Notification applies to Items
8(a) and 8(b) – Respondent No.1-MoEF&CC was directed to
ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly
or partly within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted
areas (CPAs), severely polluted areas (SPAs), eco-sensitive
zones, or inter-State boundaries be treated as Category A
projects requiring appraisal by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal
Committee (Central EAC) – The Tribunal reasoned that since
the EIA 2014 Notification had been quashed by the Kerala High
Court, the exclusion of Items 8(a) and 8(b) from the GC no
longer survived – Further, Respondent No.1 was also directed
either to strictly implement the EIA 2006 Notification, or to
issue a clarificatory notification – Challenge to:
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 95
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
Held: 1.1 In the aftermath of the impugned order, the MoEF&CC
issued Notification dtd.29.01.2025, once again inserting in Column
5 of Item 8 (a) Note expressly providing that “General Conditions
shall not apply” – The Notification recorded that it was issued in the
backdrop of the Kerala High Court judgment dtd.06.03.2024 and the
NGT’s order dtd.09.08.2024 – A consequential Office Memorandum
dtd.30.01.2025 was issued, clarifying that the Notification would
apply to the State of Kerala. [Para 21]
1.2 The latest notification dtd.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 aforesaid consequential official
Memorandum was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (C)
No.166 of 2025 whereby the Notification and the Office Memorandum
were upheld, save and except Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which was
struck down – It was held that wherever the delegated legislation
intended the General Conditions to apply, the Schedule itself made
a specific provision, and consequently Entries 8(a) and 8(b) did not
attract the applicability of the General Conditions – With respect to
the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 of the NGT, this Court found
that the Tribunal had failed to construe the EIA 2006 Notification in
its correct perspective – A plain reading of the Notification revealed
that the General Conditions were never attracted to projects falling
under Items 8(a) and 8(b). [Paras 23, 24.1]
1.3 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. [Para 24.3]
1.4 The decision so rendered has a direct bearing on the present
appeals – Since the issues raised herein already stand adjudicated,
it is neither necessary nor proper to re-examine them afresh – The
view so taken by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (C) No.166 of
2025 is fully agreed with – Thus, the impugned order dtd.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. [Paras 23, 24.3, 25]
96 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary
[2010] 15 SCR 783 : (2011) 1 SCC 744; Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra
Singh Bhandari [2017] 12 SCR 956 : (2017) 11 SCC 734; East
India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1963] 3 SCR
338 : AIR 1962 SC 1893; Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [1955] 2 SCR 589 : AIR 1955 SC 781; B.N.Tiwari v. Union
of India [1965] 2 SCR 421 : AIR 1965 SC 1430; Vanashakti v. Union
of India, W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2025; In Re: News Item published in
‘The Asian Age’; Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati [2020]
10 SCR 677 : (2020) 17 SCC 157; Mantri Techzone v. Forward
Foundation [2019] 4 SCR 995 : (2019) 18 SCC 494; Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021] 10 SCR 1 :
(2022) 13 SCC 401; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. V.B.R. Menon
[2023] 5 SCR 215 : (2023) 7 SCC 368; Workmen of American
Express v. Management (1985) 4 SCC 71; SEBI v. Ajay Agarwal
[2010] 3 SCR 70 : (2010) 3 SCC 765 – referred to.
One Earth One Life v. MoEF Decision dated 06.03.2024 of the
High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 3097 of 2016 – referred to.
Vkrant Tongad, Karukampally Vijayan Biju, M/s. Ardent Steel Ltd.
Decision of NGT – referred to.
List of Acts
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
List of Keywords
Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India
(CREDAI); EIA 2006 Notification; General Conditions (GC); Item
8(a); Building and Construction Projects; Item 8(b); Township and
Area Development Projects; Projects within 10 km (subsequently
reduced to 5 km); Environmentally sensitive areas; Category A
projects; Central Expert Appraisal Committee (Central EAC); State
Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs); State/UT Environment
Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs); Environmental protection;
Building and Construction Projects; Township and Area Development
Projects; Judicial propriety; Critically Polluted Areas (CPAs); Severely
Polluted Areas (SPAs); Eco-sensitive zones; Inter-State Boundaries;
Office Memorandum; Ongoing and proposed real estate projects;
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 97
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
Private real estate developers; Godrej Properties Ltd.; Sai Sahara
Developers Ltd.; Central Pollution Control Board; Eco-sensitive
areas; Environmental Clearance; Clarificatory notification.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 of the National
Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal in OA No. 93 of 2024
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 5532 and 5533 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Devdutt Kamat, Mukul Rohtagi, Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Advs.,
Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, Pai Amit, Nikhil Pahwa, Abhiyudaya Vats,
Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Kapil Madan, Devansh Srivastava,
E. C. Agrawala, Samit Shukla, Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Keshav Sehgal,
Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, For M/s.Trilegal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.,
Vanshdeep Dalmia, Ms. Anisha Jain, Ms. Shambhavi Singh,
Ms. Sharmishtha Shukla, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Swarupma
Chaturvedi, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Ms. Shurya Rai, Vishnu
Shankar Jain, Avijit Roy, Kunal Cheema, Akash Kakade, Somanatha
Padhan, Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Ms. Sakshi Mehta, Swetab Kumar,
Bhushan Mahendra Oza, Siddharth Sharma, Amber Dwivedi,
Kuldeep Sharma, Himanshu Nayyar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, including the intervenor, the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for Respondent No. 1, and the learned
senior counsel for Respondent No. 3. We have also perused the
materials available on record.
98 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2. The appellants herein are the Confederation of Real Estate
Developers’ Associations of India1 (Civil Appeal No.10043 of 2024),
Godrej Properties Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5532 of 2025), and Sai Sahara
Developers Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.5533 of 2025). These appeals have
been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act,
20102, assailing the final order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the
National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal3 in Original
Application No. 93 of 2024 (CZ).
3. By the impugned order, the NGT allowed the original application filed
by Respondent No. 3, and directed Respondent No. 1, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change4 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 Respondent No. 2, Central Pollution Control Board5,
(iii) eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3(2) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 19866, and
(iv) inter-state boundaries
shall be treated as ‘Category A’ projects and appraised at the Central
Level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee7. Respondent No.
1 was further directed either to strictly implement the Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.20068, or to issue a
clarificatory notification.
3.1. In arriving at its conclusion, the NGT held, inter alia, that –
(i) The “General Conditions” under the EIA 2006 Notification
are applicable to projects and activities covered under
1 In short, “CREDAI”
2 In short, “the NGT Act”
3 In short, “NGT”
4 In short, “MoEF&CC”
5 In short, “CPCB”
6 In short, “the EP Act”
7 In short, “Central SEAC”
8 In short, “EIA 2006 Notification”
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 99
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
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 22.12.20149 issued by MoEF&CC,
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. MoEF10 . 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.
4. Although the appellants were not parties before the NGT, they are
directly and substantially affected by the impugned order, as the
findings and directions therein have 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, have approached this court with the instant appeals.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal
No.10043 of 2024 submitted that the appellant – CREDAI – is the
apex body of private real estate developers in India, established in
1999 with the objective of transforming the real estate sector and
promoting housing and habitat. It represents more than 13,000
developers across 230 city chapters in 21 States, and plays a
significant role in policy formation concerning the real estate industry.
The members of the appellant undertake projects falling within items
8(a) – Building and Construction Projects, and Item 8(b) – Township
and Area Development Projects – of the Schedule to the EIA 2006
Notification.
5.1. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the “General
Conditions” (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification are inapplicable
to Items 8(a) and 8(b). The said Notification issued by the
MoEF&CC under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the EP Act,
prescribes the process for obtaining environmental clearance
for projects and activities listed in its Schedule. Paragraph 2
9 In short, “EIA 2014 Notification”
10 WP (C) No. 3097 of 2016
100 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
stipulates that projects under Category A are to be appraised
at the Central Level by the Expert Appraisal Committee,
whereas Category B projects are to be considered by the
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority11. Paragraph
4 further bifurcates Category B into B1 and B2 projects, with
B1 projects requiring submission of an EIA report, and B2
projects being exempt.
5.1.1. It was further submitted that the Schedule itself contains
five columns: Columns 1 and 2 specify the project/
activity; Columns 3 and 4 indicate whether they fall
under Category A or Category B; and Column 5 records
conditions, if any. Under this framework, Item 8(a) –
Building and Construction projects – is classified as
B2, and Item 8(b) – Township and Area Development
projects – is classified as B1. Crucially, Column 5
against these items contains no stipulation that the
General Conditions shall apply. By contrast, wherever
the legislature intended the General Conditions to apply,
it has expressly so provided – for example, Items 1(a),
1(c), 1(d), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 5(d) to 5(k), 6(b), and
7(d) to 7(i). The deliberate omission in respect of Items
8(a) and 8(b), it was argued, unmistakably reflects
legislative intent.
5.2. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in In Re: Construction
of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary12, wherein, this
Court, after referring to the minutes of a high-level meeting
chaired by the Hon’ble Prime Minister on 06.07.2006, noted
that the decision to exclude Items 8(a) and 8(b) from the sweep
of the General Conditions was consciously taken to promote
decentralisation. Paragraph 84 of the Judgment expressly
observed that “the question of application of general condition
to the projects/activities listed in the schedule also needs to
be put beyond any debate or dispute”. Consistent with this,
11 In short, “SEIAA”
12 (2011) 1 SCC 744
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 101
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
the EIA Notification dated 22.12.201413 inserted in Column 5
against Items 8(a) and 8(b), the explicit stipulation: “General
Conditions shall not apply”.
5.3. It was also submitted that the NGT, relying on the Kerala High
Court’s judgment in One Earth One Life v. MoEF (supra),
erroneously concluded in Paragraph 40 of the impugned order
that the General Conditions are “undisputably applicable” to
Items 8(a) and 8(b).
5.4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the EIA 2014
Notification was merely clarificatory, issued pursuant to this
Court’s directions in Okhla Bird Sanctuary, reaffirming what
was already implicit in the scheme of the EIA 2006 Notification –
namely, that the General Conditions were never intended to
apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b). The absence of such stipulation in
Column 5 against these entries itself establishes this position.
5.5. It was further submitted that the Kerala High Court set aside
the EIA 2014 Notification only on procedural grounds, i.e.,
deviation from the draft notification and inadequate consideration
of objections. The High Court did not pronounce upon the
substantive correctness of the clarification or the underlying
legal position. In fact, the consistent view of the MoEF&CC, as
reflected in several Office Memoranda and its Counter Affidavit
before this Court, was that Items 8(a) and 8(b) are exempt
from the General Conditions. The NGT’s assumption that the
quashing of the EIA 2014 Notification automatically revives
the applicability of General Conditions is, therefore, untenable.
5.6. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to
paragraph 41 of the impugned order, whereby the NGT issued
consequential directions. It was urged that since those directions
rest entirely on the erroneous finding in paragraph 40, they
are without legal foundation and defeat the very purpose of
decentralization – a purpose expressly recognized by this Court
in Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
5.7. Regarding the maintainability of the application, the learned
Senior Counsel argued that the jurisdiction of the NGT under
13 In short, “EIA 2014 Notification”
102 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sections 14, 15, and 2(m) of the NGT Act, is confined to
substantial environmental questions arising in a lis between
parties, and not to academic or abstract issues. Reliance was
placed on Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari14,
wherein this Court cautioned against the NGT transgressing its
statutory mandate by entertaining policy-oriented or academic
questions.
5.7.1. On this basis, it was submitted that the application of
Respondent No. 3 before the NGT was not maintainable,
as it was not founded on any personal grievance or
demonstrable nexus with the projects concerned.
Sections 14 and 15 contemplate reliefs such as
compensation, restitution of property, or restoration of
the environment – all of which necessarily presuppose
the existence of a claimant seeking redress. In the
absence of such a claim, the proceedings were beyond
the NGT’s jurisdiction.
5.8. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that Respondent
No. 1 – MoEF&CC – in its pleadings, categorically clarified that
the scrutiny conducted at the State Level by SEIAA / SEAC
is of the same rigour as that undertaken by the Central EAC.
These bodies, though constituted by the Central Government,
are manned by experts meeting the eligibility criteria under
the EIA 2006 Notification, and are fully competent to appraise
projects and grant environmental clearances.
5.9. It was submitted that the decentralization of Items 8(a) and
8(b) to the State Level was a conscious legislative choice,
designed to secure timely and effective decision-making. The
NGT’s order directing such projects to be shifted to the Central
Authority, frustrates legislative intent, overburdens the Centre,
and causes avoidable delays.
5.10. It was also argued that the NGT’s reliance on Respondent
No. 3’s submission, premised on the Office Memorandum
dated 31.10.2019, is misplaced. That Memorandum dealing
with projects in critically polluted areas15 and specially polluted
14 (2017) 11 SCC 734
15 In short, “CPA”
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 103
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
areas16 is inapplicable to projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b).
The subsequent Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2020
clarified that the earlier Memorandum dated 24.05.2011 would
continue to govern projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b), which
would remain within the jurisdiction of SEIAA / SEAC. The
order in O.A. No. 1038 of 2019, which formed the basis of
the 31.10.2019 Memorandum, did not direct any change in
the appraisal process for such projects.
5.11. In conclusion, it was urged that the impugned order of the
NGT is vitiated by want of jurisdiction, misreading of statutory
notifications, disregard of legislative intent, and failure to
follow binding precedent. The order, apart from causing grave
prejudice to stakeholders, does not advance any genuine or
substantial environmental objective, and accordingly, deserves
to be set aside.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil
Appeal No. 5532 of 2025 submitted that the appellant – Godrej
Properties Ltd.– is a public limited company forming part of the
Godrej Industries Group, which has diversified business interests
including real estate development. The appellant is amongst the
fastest growing luxury real estate developers in the country, with a
portfolio of approximately 239 million square feet of development
comprising 79 ongoing projects and 34 forthcoming projects across
India. A substantial portion of its customer base is located in Mumbai.
6.1. The learned Senior Counsel adopted the submissions advanced
on behalf of CREDAI.
6.2. It was further submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by
the NGT, there is presently no authority competent to appraise
applications for Environmental Clearance in respect of projects
falling under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. By virtue of
the impugned order, the State SEACs have been precluded
from granting Environmental Clearance for such projects; and,
as stated by the Union of India in its reply affidavit in CA. No.
10043 of 2024, the Central Authority is also not in a position
to appraise these projects.
16 In short, “SPA”
104 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6.3. It was also pointed out that this policy paralysis has severely
prejudiced the appellant’s ongoing projects as well as
hundreds of homebuyers. Of the five projects presently under
consideration, four pertain to expansion of Environmental
Clearances already granted under the EIA 2006 Notification,
while one project involves a fresh application filed before the
SEIAA. During the pendency of the present appeal, in order
to avoid delay and protect the interests of stakeholders, the
appellant submitted all five projects to the Central SEAC for
appraisal. However, as matters stand, neither the State SEIAA
nor the Central SEAC is appraising the projects, leaving the
appellant without any effective remedy.
6.4. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as a
direct consequence, more than 1,469 flat purchasers are
affected, whose homes are at stake, since the appellant
has already created third party rights on the strength of the
Environmental Clearances initially granted by the SEIAA.
Additionally, approximately 613 families whose houses are
being redeveloped by the appellant are indefinitely deprived
of possession. All these projects are registered under the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The
appellant is therefore bound by statutory as well as contractual
obligations to complete construction and hand over possession
within the prescribed timelines. Non-compliance would expose
the appellant to serious consequences under RERA, including
liability to pay interest for delayed possession, imposition of
penalties, and directions to ensure timely completion and
delivery of flats. In effect, the appraisal process for projects
under Items 8(a) and 8(b) has come to a complete standstill by
reason of the impugned order, resulting in cascading adverse
consequences not only for the appellant but also for thousands
of innocent stakeholders.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil
Appeal No.5533 of 2025 submitted that the appellant – Sai Sahara
Constructions –is a partnership firm engaged in the business of
purchase and sale of land and construction of residential and
commercial buildings under the trade name “Sai Sahara Developers”.
The firm was constituted by a Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2022
at Nashik, Maharashtra.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 105
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
7.1. It was contended that the NGT passed the impugned order
based on a fundamentally flawed reading of the Okhla Bird
Sanctuary judgment. A contextual interpretation of paragraph
84, alongside paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment, makes
it clear that the legislative intent was to exempt Items 8(a) and
8(b) under the EIA 2006 Notification from the operation of the
General Conditions. The authority to determine the level of
appraisal lies exclusively with the legislature and the competent
authority under the EIA framework. Since State-level appraisal for
these items is expressly mandated, the NGT lacked jurisdiction
to alter this statutory scheme. The omission of any condition in
Column 5 for Items 8(a) and 8(b), unlike other entries, reflects a
deliberate legislative choice to exclude the General Conditions.
This interpretation is further supported by the plain language
of the Notification and multiple Office Memoranda issued by
MoEF&CC. Accordingly, by reinterpreting an unambiguous
statutory scheme, the NGT overstepped its jurisdiction, contrary
to the principle of strict interpretation and the binding precedent
in Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
7.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Kerala
High Court’s judgment quashing the EIA 2014 Notification does
not alter the existing legal framework, as the 2014 Notification
was purely clarificatory. The original EIA 2006 Notification never
extended the General Conditions to Items 8(a) and 8(b), which
deal with building and construction projects. Moreover, the
Kerala High Court’s decision has no binding effect outside its
territorial jurisdiction and cannot determine the interpretation
of law by other High Courts or by this Tribunal. The principle
of stare decisis operates only within the territorial limits of the
concerned Court. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the impugned order,
however, led to indefinite delays not only in the appellant’s
project but also in numerous real estate projects across the
country. Such delays jeopardise the financial and practical
viability of these projects, and the blanket suspension of
environmental clearances has had a cascading impact on
housing development, thereby infringing the fundamental rights
to shelter and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution
for thousands of affected persons, including slum dwellers,
society members, and homebuyers.
106 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.3. It was also contended that the impugned order failed to consider
the Office Memoranda dated 24.05.2011 and 13.03.2020, which
clearly stated that the General Conditions are inapplicable to
projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. These
Memoranda reaffirmed that, since the inception of the EIA 2006
Notification, such projects have consistently been appraised
at the State level by SEAC/SEIAA. However, Respondent
No. 3 suppressed these crucial documents and failed to place
them before the NGT, leading to their non-consideration in the
impugned order.
7.4. On the issue of jurisdiction, learned Senior Counsel referred to
the Preamble of the NGT Act, which emphasizes that the Tribunal
is constituted for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases
relating to environmental protection and conservation of natural
resources, including the enforcement of legal rights relating to
the environment and the grant of relief and compensation for
damages to persons and property.
7.4.1. Reference was also made to Chapter III of the Act, which
deals with the jurisdiction, powers, and procedure of
the Tribunal. In particular, Sections 14 and 15, confine
its jurisdiction to civil cases involving a substantial
question relating to the environment, and to disputes
capable of settlement through relief, compensation, or
restitution. On a combined reading of these provisions,
it was submitted that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not
extend to abstract policy issues or to directions in the
nature of mandamus against the MoEF&CC.
7.5. It was further submitted that in the present case, Respondent
No. 3 approached the Tribunal suo motu, without any existing
lis or locus, seeking directions to classify and appraise certain
building and construction projects as Category A at the
Central level and to extend the General Conditions to Item
8 of the Schedule. Such directions fall outside the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction. The Notification under challenge in WP (C) No. 166
of 2025 is purely clarificatory, reaffirming the pre-existing legal
position that the General Conditions do not apply to Items 8(a)
and 8(b).
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 107
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
7.6. In view of the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel
prayed that the impugned order of the NGT be set aside and
the present appeal allowed.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor – Ricardo
Constructions Pvt., Ltd., submitted that the Intervenor became the
lawful owner of the project pursuant to a registered conveyance
deed dated 29.06.2019, executed after the erstwhile promoter failed
to complete the development and defaulted on loan repayments,
leading to SARFAESI proceedings in 2019. The project is situated at
Village Mulund, Jata Shankar Dosa Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai, on
plots bearing CTS Nos. 661/1/4 to 661/1/8. The Intervenor planned
an expansion comprising 10 residential buildings. Out of these, 5
buildings (1A, 3, 4, 7, 8) were completed prior to the EIA Notification;
3 buildings (5, 6, 9) obtained Environmental Clearance on 03.09.2014;
and 2 new buildings (1B and 2) are presently proposed. The project
enjoys excellent connectivity, being 0.39 km from Mulund Railway
Station and 14 km from Mumbai International Airport, with hospitals,
schools, colleges, and banks in close proximity. Since the project
site is located 1.06 km from Sanjay Gandhi National Park and
Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary, it falls within Category A under
the EIA 2006 Notification. Accordingly, the Intervenor applied to the
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on 09.09.2024 and also obtained
Consent to Establish and Operate from the Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board on 02.08.2024, valid up to 02.08.2025. The estimated
project cost is approximately Rs. 980 crores.
8.1. It was submitted that the General Conditions under the EIA
2006 Notification, are inapplicable to Building and Construction
Projects. Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule expressly leave
Column 5 (Conditions, if any) blank, whereas in other categories,
where General Conditions apply, the same are specifically
mentioned. This Court in Okhla Bird Sanctuary clarified that
General Conditions do not apply to Building and Construction
Projects. Hence, even prior to the 2014 amendment, Items 8(a)
and 8(b) stood exempt from General Conditions.
8.2. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Kerala
High Court in One Earth One Life v. MoEF (supra) quashed
the EIA 2014 Notification only insofar as it operated within the
108 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
State of Kerala. That judgment has no application beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. Reliance was placed
on the decision of this Court in East India Commercial Co.
Ltd. v. Collector of Customs17, wherein, it was held that
judgments of High Courts are binding only within their respective
territorial jurisdiction. The NGT, therefore, erred in extending the
effect of the Kerala High Court’s judgment across the country,
thereby stalling thousands of projects nationwide without legal
justification.
8.3. It was further urged that the quashing of the 2014 Notification
does not result in automatic revival of the pre-existing regime
of General Conditions. It is a settled principle that annulment
of a law or notification does not ipso facto revive an earlier law
unless there is an express provision to that effect. Reference
was made to the Doctrine of Eclipse as explained in Bhikaji
Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh18, which holds
that a law rendered inoperative is not obliterated but remains
in a dormant state, and does not automatically revive unless
re-enacted or specifically revived. Since there was no such
revival in the present case, the General Conditions cannot be
applied to Item 8 projects.
8.4. Finally, it was contended that the impugned order of the NGT is
vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice. The order
has a far-reaching impact on construction projects across the
country, including the Intervenor’s project, yet no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to affected stakeholders. This omission
amounts to a clear violation of the principle of audi alteram
partem. The NGT, by misinterpreting the scope of its jurisdiction
and the EIA Notification, has exceeded its authority. Hence, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court to rectify
the legal error, prevent undue losses, and safeguard the rights
of lawful project developers.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing
for Respondent No.1, made the following submissions:
17 AIR 1962 SC 1893
18 AIR 1955 SC 781
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 109
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
9.1. The Ministry, in exercise of its powers under Section 3(1) and
clause (v) of Section 3(2) of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, issued S.O. 1533(E) dated 14.09.2006 (principal
notification) mandating prior Environmental Clearance (EC)
for projects listed in the Schedule thereto. The EC is granted
following the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process
laid down in the notification, as amended from time to time.
9.2. The EIA 2006 Notification prescribes “General Conditions” (GC),
which provide for the re-categorization of certain Category ‘B’
projects as Category ‘A’ where they are located, wholly or partly,
within 5 km or 10 km, as the case may be, of: (i) Protected Areas
under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii) Critically Polluted
Areas notified by CPCB, (iii) Notified Eco-Sensitive Areas, or
(iv) Inter-State / International boundaries. However, GC applies
only where expressly mentioned in Column 5 of the Schedule.
Since no such reference was made in respect of items 8(a) and
8(b), the General Conditions were never applicable to them.
This was clarified by an Office memorandum dated 24.05.2011,
which specifically stated that Building and Construction Projects
[8(a)] and Township / Area Development Projects [8(b)] do not
attract GC, even in critically polluted areas and hence, remain
within SEIAA jurisdiction.
9.3. A further Notification dated 22.12.2014 amended the EIA 2006
Notification to explicitly reaffirm that GC did not apply to items
8(a) and 8(b). However, the High Court of Kerala in One Earth
One Life v. MoEF&CC (supra), quashed the 2014 Notification
on the sole technical ground that the final notification differed
from the draft, while leaving liberty to the Ministry to issue a
fresh notification.
9.4. Subsequently, the NGT, by the impugned order dated
09.08.2024, directed Respondent No.1 either to comply with
the provisions relating to GC applicability to Items 8(a)and
8(b) or issue a clarificatory notification. That order proceeded
on a misreading of the Kerala High Court’s judgment. In fact,
Items 8(a) and 8(b) were never subject to GC, even under the
principal notification.
9.5. Pursuant to the NGT’s directions, the Ministry prepared a draft
clarificatory notification, which was referred to the Ministry of
110 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Law and Justice (MoLJ) for vetting. MoLJ opined that since the
2014 Notification had substituted Entry 8, and the Kerala High
Court had quashed the substituted entry, the original entry did
not automatically revive. Relying on B.N.Tiwari v. Union of
India19 MoLJ advised that a fresh notification was necessary to
reinsert the provision. A legal vacuum thus arose, necessitating
issuance of a fresh notification. Accordingly, a draft notification
dated 07.11.2024 was published, inviting objections and
suggestions. After considering 668 responses and consulting the
Expert Appraisal Committee, the Ministry finalized and issued
a notification dated 29.01.2025, explicitly reiterating that GC
does not apply to items 8(a) and 8(b).
9.6. This notification was challenged in Vanashakti v. Union of
India [W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2025], wherein this Court granted
an exparte stay on 24.02.2025. Consequently, another legal
vacuum has arisen, and the Ministry is unable to process any
application under item 8.
9.7. On the competence of SEIAAs and SEACs, it was submitted
that these bodies were constituted to decentralize decision-
making, avoid delays, and ensure efficiency in granting ECs.
SEACs comprise experts of comparable standing to members
of Central EACs, with eligibility criteria prescribed in Appendix
VI of the EIA 2006 Notification. Both SEIAAs and SEACs,
being constituted by the Central Government are technically
competent to appraise projects under Item 8. Directing that such
projects be appraised only by MoEF&CC would create inequality,
encourage forum-shopping, and overburden MoEF&CC, thereby
frustrating the timelines prescribed under EIA 2006 Notification
and undermining the efficiency of the decentralized system.
9.8. In these circumstances, it was urged that the NGT’s order
dated 09.08.2024, founded on an erroneous interpretation of
the Kerala High Court’s decision, be quashed, that Respondent
No. 3 be restrained from engaging in forum-shopping, and that
the settled position – that Items 8(a) and 8(b) are not subject
to GC and remain within SEIAA jurisdiction – be reaffirmed.
19 AIR 1965 SC 1430
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 111
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
10. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 3 however,
submitted that Original Application No. 93 of 2024 was filed before
the NGT in pursuance of Respondent’s commitment to environmental
protection, particularly to ensure that Building and Construction
Projects – among the most pollution-intensive industries in the
country – are subjected to higher scrutiny by sector-specific Expert
Appraisal committees (EACs) at the Central Level. Such projects,
especially those located in CPA, SPA, Eco-Sensitive Zones or
Protected Areas, demand rigorous appraisal by experts with relevant
domain expertise.
10.1. It was urged that the NGT correctly appreciated the statutory
mechanism notified on 24.10.2019 under Section 5 of the EP
Act, which covers both CPA and SPA areas. While the General
Conditions expressly refer only to CPA areas, a cumulative
reading of the mechanism and the notification led the Tribunal
to rightly conclude that projects within CPA/SPA, including
Building and Construction Projects, must be appraised at the
Central level by sectoral EACs. In so holding, the NGT relied
on Clause 7(i)(III)(i)(d), Appendix VI of EIA 2006, its earlier
decisions in Vkrant Tongad, Karukampally Vijayan Biju, M/s.
Ardent Steel Ltd., and this Court’s decision in In Re: News
Item published in ‘The Asian Age’.
10.2. It was further submitted that subsequent to the impugned order,
MoEF&CC issued Notification dated 29.01.2025 inserting Note
2 in Item 8 to clarify that “General Conditions do not apply”.
That notification has been challenged in Vanashakti v. Union
of India [WP (C) No. 166 of 2025], and operation thereof has
been stayed by this Court on 24.02.2025. Hence, the issue of
GC applicability is sub judice. Even so, the mechanism dated
24.10.2019 operates independently of GC applicability. That
mechanism issued under Section 5 of the EP Act and upheld
by this Court’s judgment dated 25.02.2022 in a batch of Civil
Appeals (CA Nos. 2218-2219, 2220-2221, 2434, 2463, 3319-
3321 of 2020), continues to mandate that all projects within
5 km of CPA/SPA be treated as Category A and appraised at
the Central Level.
10.3. The learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on the suo
motu proceedings in OA No. 1038 of 2018 [News item in ‘The
112 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Asian Age’ by Sanjay Kaw] wherein, the NGT noted the grave
environmental impact of high pollution in CPA/SPA, temporarily
prohibited new activities, and directed MoEF&CC to evolve a
mechanism for stringent scrutiny of projects in such areas. The
Ministry thereafter issued the 24.10.2019 mechanism. Since
this Court has affirmed the same, it has attained finality and
binds all projects, including Building and Construction.
10.4. It was emphasized that MoEF&CC itself, in its counter before
the Tribunal and written submissions before this Court, did
not dispute applicability of the mechanism to Building and
Construction Projects. Thus, it is implicit that such projects are
included. Excluding them alone while all other 37 activities in
the Schedule remain covered, would defeat the object of the
mechanism and the environmental protection mandate.
10.5. It was further submitted that the EIA 2014 Notification inserting
Note 2 to Entry 8 (excluding GC) itself shows that GC otherwise
applied to Building and Construction projects. This amendment
was struck down by the Kerala High Court in One Earth One
Life v. MoEF (supra). Likewise, the 29.01.2025 Notification
has been stayed by this Court. Hence, GC continues to apply.
Administrative circulars such as OMs dated 24.05.2011 and
13.03.2020, being non-statutory, cannot override a statutory
mechanism under Section 5 of the EP Act [See: Alembic
Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati20]
10.6. On jurisdiction, it was submitted that the plea regarding excess
of jurisdiction by the NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act
was not raised in the pleadings and hence, cannot be urged
belatedly. In any event, this Court in Mantri Techzone v.
Forward Foundation21, Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha22 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v.
V.B.R. Menon23, has affirmed the wide powers of the NGT to
direct effective measures for environmental protection.
20 (2020) 17 SCC 157
21 (2019) 18 SCC 494
22 (2022) 13 SCC 401
23 (2023) 7 SCC 368
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 113
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
10.7. It was finally urged that the NGT’s purposive interpretation of
EIA 2006 Notification, in holding GC applicable to Building and
Construction Projects, is consistent with this Court’s approach
in Workmen of American Express v. Management24 and
SEBI v. Ajay Agarwal25. Where two interpretations are possible,
that which furthers the object of environmental protection must
prevail.
10.8. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeals be dismissed, the
impugned NGT order upheld, or in the alternative, this Court
may direct that all Building and Construction projects within 5
km of CPA/SPA as notified by CPCB, be treated as Category
A and appraised at the Central level by the Sectoral EAC,
in terms of the mechanism dated 24.10.2019, which already
stands affirmed by this Court.
11. On the basis of the submissions advanced by the parties, the core
issue that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the
General Conditions under the EIA 2006 Notification, are applicable
to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction Projects) and Item 8(b)
(Township and Area Development Projects) of the Schedule
thereto, and, if so, whether such projects – when situated within
10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of environmentally sensitive
areas – are required to be appraised as Category A projects by the
Central Expert Appraisal Committee, rather than being considered
by the State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs) and the State/
UT Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
12. At this stage, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the background
in which the present appeals have been instituted.
13. On 14 September 2006, the Union of India, in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 3 of the EP Act, issued the EIA 2006
Notification. The Notification classified projects into two categories:
Category A, requiring prior environmental clearance from the Central
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), and Category B, requiring
clearance from the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and
the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The
24 (1985) 4 SCC 71
25 (2010) 3 SC 765
114 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Schedule to the Notification contains a General Condition (GC), under
which projects falling in Category B would be treated as Category
A if located within a specified distance of certain environmentally
sensitive areas. Column 5 of the Schedule, titled “Conditions, if any,”
enumerates the items to which the GC applies. Significantly, Items
8(a) [Building and Construction Projects] and 8(b) [Townships and
Area Development Projects] were not subjected to the GC under the
Schedule. The General Condition stipulated that projects situated
within 10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of the following would
be treated as Category A:
• Protected Areas notified under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972;
• Critically Polluted Areas as identified by CPCB;
• Notified Eco-sensitive Zones; and
• Inter-State or International Boundaries.
14. The scope of the GC arose for consideration before this Court in
Okhla Bird Sanctuary. While examining whether the GC under the
EIA 2006 Notification extended to projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b),
this Court noted the contention that since Column 5 does not expressly
apply the GC to these items, the legislative intent was to leave such
projects within the jurisdiction of the States. Reference was also made
to the meeting of 6 – 7 July 2006 chaired by the then Prime Minister,
wherein it was decided that construction and township projects would be
regulated at the State level, irrespective of their size. The Court further
observed that greater clarity was required, both in the description of
projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b), and in the application of the GC.
The following extract from paragraph 84 is apposite:
“… question of application of the general condition to the
projects/activities listed in the Schedule also needs to be
put beyond any debate or dispute”.
15. Pursuant to the above, the MoEF issued an Office Memorandum
dated 24 May 2011 clarifying that projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b)
of the EIA 2006 Notification do not attract the GC. Consequently,
building and construction projects and township and area development
projects would remain in Category B, irrespective of their location
vis-à-vis critically polluted or eco-sensitive areas, and would continue
to be appraised at the State level.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 115
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
16. Thereafter, on 22 December 2014, the MoEF&CC issued Notification
S.O. 3252(E) amending the Schedule to the EIA 2006 Notification
by inserting a Note to Items 8(a) and 8(b), expressly stipulating that
the GC shall not apply to building, construction, township and area
development projects.
17. The validity of the EIA 2014 Notification was challenged before the
High Court of Kerala in One Earth One Life v. MoEF&CC (supra).
By judgment dated 6 March 2024, the High Court quashed the
Notification on two grounds: (i) that the final notification erroneously
recorded that no objections had been received, despite objections
having been submitted; and (ii) that there existed impermissible
variance between the draft and final notification.
18. Meanwhile, in suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of a
newspaper report (News item published in “The Asian Age” authored
by Sanjay Kaw, O.A. No. 1038 of 2018), the NGT by order dated 19
August 2019, directed formulation of a mechanism for environmental
management of CPAs and SPAs, and for regulation of projects in such
areas. Pursuant thereto, the MoEF&CC issued Office Memoranda
dated 31 October 2019, and 30 December 2019, and on 13 March
2020, reiterated that projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b) would continue
to be appraised by the SEIAA / SEAC in terms of the earlier OM of
24 May 2011.
19. The orders of the NGT in O.A. No. 1038 of 2018 were assailed before
this Court in a batch of Civil Appeals (CA Nos. 2218-2219 of 2020
and connected cases). By a common judgment dated 25 February
2022, this Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the directions
issued by the NGT.
20. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 instituted Original Application No.
93 of 2024 before the NGT, contending that unregulated proliferation
of large-scale construction projects in critically polluted and eco-
sensitive areas posed grave risks to the right to life and health
of local residents, and that such projects ought to be treated as
Category A. By its order dated 9 August 2024, the NGT disposed
of the application, holding inter alia that the GC under the EIA 2006
Notification applies to Items 8(a) and 8(b). The Tribunal directed the
MoEF&CC to ensure that all building and construction projects falling
wholly or partly within 5 km of protected areas, CPAs, SPAs, eco-
116 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sensitive zones, or inter-State boundaries be treated as Category
A projects requiring appraisal by the Central EAC. In doing so, the
Tribunal reasoned that, since the EIA 2014 Notification had been
quashed by the Kerala High Court, the exclusion of Items 8(a) and
8(b) from the GC no longer survived. It is this order of the NGT that
is assailed in the present appeals.
21. In the aftermath of the impugned order, the MoEF&CC issued
Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29 January 2025, once again inserting
in Column 5 of Item 8 a Note expressly providing that “General
Conditions shall not apply”. The Notification records that it was issued
in the backdrop of the Kerala High Court judgment dated 6 March
2024 and the NGT’s order dated 9 August 2024. A consequential
Office Memorandum dated 30 January 2025 was issued, clarifying
that the Notification would apply to the State of Kerala.
22. The constitutional validity of Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29 January
2025, together with the consequential Office Memorandum dated 30
January 2025, was challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025,
Vanashakti v. Union of India, before this Court. By order dated 5
August 2025, this Court partly allowed the writ petition. The relevant
paragraphs read as follows:
“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 Category with Conditions if
Activity threshold limit any
(1) A B
Mining, extraction of natural resources
and power generation (for a specified
production capacity)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 117
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
15. It can thus be seen that the Schedule has five columns.
In the first column, serial number of the project or activity is
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 Conditions if
threshold limit any
(1) A B
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
Construction mtrs and < area for
projects 1,50,000 sq. covered
mtrs. of built- construction;
up areas # in the case
of facilities
open to the
sky, it will be
activity area)
8(b) Townships Covering an ++ All
and Area area > 50 ha projects
Development and or bilt under item
projects up area > 8(b) shall be
1,50,000 sq. appraised as
mtrs++ Category B1
118 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 119
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
Project or Activity Category with Conditions if any
threshold limit
(1) A B
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 The term “built
Construction sq. mtrs up area” for the
projects and < purpose of this
1,50,000 notification is
sq. mtrs. defined as the built
of built-up up or covered area
areas on all floors put
together, including
its basement and
other service
areas, which
are pro posed
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.
120 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8(b) Townships Covering A project of
and Area an area > Township and
Development 50 ha and Area Development
projects / or built- Projects covered
up area > under this item
1,50,000 shall require an
sq. m. Environment
Impact
Assessment report
and be appraised
as Category ‘B1’
project.
Note. “General
Conditions” shall
not apply.
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 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 121
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
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.
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.
122 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
27. At the cost of repetition, we observe 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.
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 the principle of sustainable development.
Some of the notable decisions of this Court are Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others,
Jagannath v. Union of India and Others3, Consumer
Education & Research Society v. Union of India and
Others, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and
Others, Tata Housing Development Company Limited v.
Aalok Jagga and Others and State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others.
33. A reference in this respect can also be made to the
recent judgment of this Court rendered In Re: Zudpi
Jungle Lands, 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:
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 123
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
“117. Another aspect that needs to be considered
is the balance between environmental protection
and the need for 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 acceptable.
“Sustainable Development” is the
answer. In the international sphere,
“Sustainable Development” as a
concept came to be known for the
124 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
first time in the Stockholm Declaration
of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the
concept was given a definite shape
b y t h e Wo r l d C o m m i s s i o n o n
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 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 125
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
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 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.
126 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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
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.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 127
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
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 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,
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
128 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 29th
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.”
23. 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. Since the issues raised herein already stand
adjudicated, it is neither necessary nor proper for us to re-examine
them afresh. In the interest of judicial propriety, therefore, we are
inclined to dispose of the present appeals in light of the aforesaid
judgment.
24. 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 129
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
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.
24.1. Upon considering the matter, this Court held that wherever the
delegated legislation intended the General Conditions to apply,
the Schedule itself made a specific provision, and consequently
Entries 8(a) and 8(b) did not attract the applicability of the
General Conditions. With respect to the impugned order dated
09.08.2024 of the NGT, this Court found that the Tribunal
had failed to construe the EIA 2006 Notification in its correct
perspective. A plain reading of the Notification revealed that
the General Conditions were never attracted to projects falling
under Items 8(a) and 8(b).
24.2. This Court also observed that one of the reasons for issuing
the 2025 Notification was the ambiguity concerning the built-up
area requirement, as noted in Okhla Bird Sanctuary. 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 was further 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.
24.3. 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.
25. 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
130 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
26. All these appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There is no order
as to costs.
27. Pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "CREDAI"Sign in to search