Supreme Court of India
HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 159
- Decided
- 13 February 2026
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Court held that the CLU was ultra vires the Master Plan, the subsequent approval could not cure its defect or amend the Master Plan, the required environmental siting safeguards were not met, and the CPCB’s re‑classification and related notifications were unconstitutional, leading to their quashment.
Summary
The appellants, a group of agriculturists and a nearby school, challenged a Change of Land Use (CLU) dated 13‑12‑2021 that permitted a cement‑related grinding unit on land classified as a rural agricultural zone in the Sangrur Master Plan. The High Court had upheld the CLU, relying on a subsequent approval recorded on 05‑01‑2022 by the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Supreme Court held that the CLU was invalid because the Master Plan’s zoning prohibited such an industrial activity and that a later approval could not cure the defect or amend the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act. It also found that the required environmental siting norms and safeguards were not complied with, and that the CPCB’s re‑classification of the unit from “Red” to “Orange” and the related MoEF&CC notifications unlawfully diluted preventive safeguards, violating Articles 14 and 21. Consequently, the Court quashed the CLU, the related pollution‑control consent, the CPCB re‑classification, and the notifications, and set aside the High Court’s order. The appeals were allowed and the writ petitions disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a Change of Land Use dated 13‑12‑2021 could be granted for a cement grinding unit when the site fell within a rural agricultural zone under the operative Master Plan for Sangrur.
- Whether the approval recorded on 05‑01‑2022 by the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board can lawfully cure the defect in the CLU and operate as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act.
- Whether the siting norms and environmental safeguards, including the PPCB notification of 02‑09‑1998 and the EIA Notification 2006, were complied with in relation to the proximity of habitations and a school.
- Whether the CPCB’s revised industrial sector categorisation of a stand‑alone grinding unit from “Red” to “Orange” and the consequent MoEF&CC notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E can be sustained in law under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986
- Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995s. 70, s. 75, s. 76, s. 79, s. 80, s. 81
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration whether change of land use-CLU dated 13.12.2021 could have been granted for the proposed unit when the land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur treated the site as falling in rural agricultural zone; whether “approval” recorded in Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully cure the admitted defect in the CLU and whether such approval is capable in law of operating as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act; whether the siting norms and environmental
Subjects
Land use under the Master Plan for SangrurRural agricultural zoneChange of Land Use (CLU)Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board approvalAlteration or amendment of Master PlanSiting norms and environmental safeguardsPPCB notification 02.09.1998Revised industrial sector categorisationStand‑alone grinding unit without CPPRed categoryOrange categoryNotifications GSR 84E 29.01.2025Notifications GSR 85E 30.01.2025Precautionary principleSustainable developmentEnvironmental protectionArticles 14 and 21 Constitution of India
Judgment
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 179 : 2026 INSC 159
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
v.
The State of Punjab & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2331 of 2026)
13 February 2026
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose for consideration whether change of land use-CLU
dated 13.12.2021 could have been granted for the proposed unit
when the land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur treated
the site as falling in rural agricultural zone; whether “approval”
recorded in the 43rd meeting of the Punjab Regional and Town
Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully
cure the admitted defect in the CLU and whether such approval is
capable in law of operating as an alteration or amendment of the
Master Plan under the PRTPD Act; whether the siting norms and
environmental safeguards, including the PPCB notification dated
02.09.1998 and the relevant regulatory framework, were complied
with in relation to the proximity of habitations and the school; and
whether the revised industrial sector categorisation issued by CPCB
in January, 2025, insofar as it reclassifies the activity described
as “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from “Red” category
to “Orange” category, together with the consequential relaxation
of siting and regulatory safeguards brought about by Notifications
GSR 84E dt 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dt 30.01.2025, can be
sustained in law.
Headnotes†
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act,
1995 – Legality of the change of land use-CLU – Respondent
no. 9 purchased land for establishing cement related industrial
unit in close proximity to the agricultural lands and residential
houses of the appellants-group of agriculturists, and the
School located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site –
CLU issued in favour of respondent no.9 for the proposed
unit – Appellant’s case that CLU was granted in a manner not
* Author
180 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
contemplated by the Act, and the proposed site falls within rural
agricultural zone under the Master Plan for Sangrur and that
red category polluting industry could not have been permitted
at the said location – Writ petitions thereagainst, dismissed
by the High Court holding that as on 13.12.2021, CLU did not
have statutory backing in the form contemplated by the Act,
however, upheld CLU since the Regional and Town Planning
and Development Board granted approval in its meeting dt
05.01.2022 and treated the said approval as curing the defect
and accepted the stand that the land use permissibility stood
validated thereafter – Justification:
Held: CLU dated 13.12.2021 could not have been granted for the
proposed unit when, under the operative Master Plan for Sangrur,
the site fell in a rural agricultural zone where the proposed activity
was not permissible – Permission must be lawful when it is granted –
It cannot be rendered lawful by a later event unless the PRTPD
Act itself so provides – “Approval” recorded on 05.01.2022 could
not lawfully cure the defect in the CLU dated 13.12.2021, and it
is not capable, in law, of operating as an alteration or amendment
of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act – Approach adopted by
the High Court, which treated the subsequent approval as curing
the illegality of the CLU, cannot be accepted when the statutory
structure does not permit legality to be supplied to an act which
was unlawful when done, by a later administrative approval which
does not itself satisfy the mandatory requirements governing
alteration or revision of the Master Plan – High Court’s approach,
which proceeded on the premise that an act lacking statutory
backing on the date of its issuance may nonetheless be sustained
by a subsequent ex post facto approval, is inconsistent with this
statutory structure – Siting norms and safeguards, including the
PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 and the regulatory discipline
underlying prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification,
2006, not complied with in the manner required by law – Proposed
control systems and future-stage compliances cannot substitute
the obligation to satisfy siting norms and the discipline underlying
prior environmental clearance at the relevant time – Nor can
subsequent material or later regulatory developments be invoked
to retrospectively validate the legality of permissions already found
to be without statutory foundation – Thus, judgment and order
passed by the High Court set aside – Change of Land Use granted
in favour of respondent no.9 quashed. [Paras 9-36]
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 181
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
Environmental law – Reclassification from “Red” category to
“Orange” category – Revised industrial sector categorisation
issued by the CPCB in January, 2025 – Reclassification
of “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP (Captive Power
Plant) from “Red” category to “Orange” category with the
consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards
brought about by Notifications GSR 84E dt 29.01.2025 and
GSR 85E dt 30.01.2025 – Sustainability:
Held: Revised categorisation and the consequential regulatory
relaxations elevate a generic classification methodology to a
position where it overrides preventive environmental safeguards,
without adequate regard to exposure risks, local conditions, or
the constitutional obligation to protect life and health – Such an
approach is inconsistent with the precautionary principle, the
doctrine of sustainable development, and the content of Art. 21 –
Revised categorisation and consequential relaxation of siting
safeguards materially affect the level of protection available to
civilians, including residents and school-going children, against
exposure to industrial pollution – By lowering the regulatory
threshold applicable to an activity with known particulate emission
characteristics, revised framework permits such units to be located
closer to habitations and educational institutions – Impact is not
speculative, it directly implicates public health and safety – Thus,
the present intervention warranted because the impugned actions
have the effect of lowering the constitutional minimum of protection
guaranteed to affected communities – Revised industrial sector
categorisation issued by the CPCB in January, 2025, insofar as it
reclassifies the activity described as a “stand-alone grinding unit
without CPP” from the “Red” category to the “Orange” category,
cannot be sustained in law – Said reclassification, read together
with the consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards
brought about by Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E has the effect
of diluting preventive environmental protections in a manner that
infringes the constitutional guarantees u/Arts.14 and 21 – Revised
industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB in January,
2025 quashed insofar as it reclassifies the activity described as a
“stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from the “Red” category
to the “Orange” category – Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E
quashed insofar as they relax the applicable siting and regulatory
safeguards for such units on the basis of the said reclassification –
Any consent, approval or permission that has been granted solely
182 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on the basis of the said reclassification of “stand-alone grinding
unit without CPP” as an “Orange” category activity or on the basis
of the relaxed siting and regulatory safeguards introduced by
Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E will not survive and stands
withdrawn – CPCB or MoEF & CC not precluded from undertaking
fresh exercise of classification or regulatory review in accordance
with law – Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 21. [Paras 65-68]
Environmental law – Environmental protection and
development – Constitutional balance – Explanation:
Held: Economic development and industrial growth are legitimate
and important objectives of the State – However, in a constitutional
framework founded on the rule of law, development is not an
abstract or absolute goal – It is conditioned by the non-derogable
obligation to protect life, health, and environmental integrity –
Development that undermines these foundational values ceases
to be constitutionally permissible development – Doctrine of
sustainable development is not a slogan of compromise but a
principle of prioritisation – It requires that when developmental
activity poses a credible risk to human health or environmental
safety, regulatory frameworks must err on the side of protection –
Constitution does not permit a trade-off where civilian life and health
are exposed to foreseeable harm on the assumption that economic
benefit or industrial facilitation justifies such exposure – Arts.14 and
21 do not tolerate a regulatory calculus that treats environmental
safety as negotiable – If regulatory dilution were to be accepted,
it would mark a fundamental shift in environmental governance –
Sector-level reclassification, divorced from exposure realities and
local sensitivities, would become a ready instrument to justify siting
of polluting activities in close proximity to habitations, schools,
and other sensitive receptors – It would operate as a precedent,
enabling progressive erosion of preventive safeguards across
regions, with cumulative and irreversible consequences – Law does
not permit environmental protection to be weakened incrementally
until harm becomes inevitable – Environmental harm, once caused,
is often irreversible or incapable of full remediation – Public health
consequences, degradation of air quality, and long-term ecological
damage cannot be undone by subsequent regulatory correction –
Thus, environmental regulation is designed to be preventive rather
than reactive – Regulatory framework that allows risk to materialise
first and seeks to address consequences later is fundamentally
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 183
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
incompatible with constitutional environmental jurisprudence – This
Court does not ordinarily interfere with technical classifications or
policy determinations made by expert bodies, however, judicial
restraint cannot extend to abdication – Where regulatory action
results in lowering of the constitutional minimum of protection
guaranteed to citizens, particularly in matters affecting life and
health, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional obligation.
[Paras 60-64]
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act,
1995 – ss.70, 75, 76, 79-81 – Preparation and approval of Master
Plans – Master Plan, its binding force, and the procedure for
alteration/revision – Control of development and “change of
land use” permissions – Explained. [Paras 7.1-7.10]
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 – EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 – Environmental
clearance and siting safeguards – Explained. [Paras 7.11-7.13]
Case Law Cited
K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi [1975] 1
SCR 680 : (1974) 2 SCC 506; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.
Muddappa [1991] 3 SCR 102 : (1991) 4 SCC 54; Vellore Citizens’
Welfare Forum v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5
SCC 647; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 7 SCR 465 :
(1997) 3 SCC 715; Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence
of Environment & Animals [2020] 10 SCR 273 : (2020) 10 SCC
589; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram - Oleum Gas) [1987]
1 SCR 819 : (1987) 1 SCC 395; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212;
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [1999] 1 SCR
235 : (1999) 2 SCC 718 – referred to.
List of Acts
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act,
1995; Constitution of India; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
List of Keywords
Land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur; Rural agricultural zone;
Approval recorded in 43rd meeting of the Punjab Regional and Town
184 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Planning and Development Board dated 05.01.2022; Alteration or
amendment of the Master Plan; Siting norms and environmental
safeguards; PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998; Regulatory
framework; Revised industrial sector categorisation; Stand-alone
grinding unit without CPP; “Red” category; “Orange” category;
Relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards; Notifications GSR
84E dated 29.01.2025; GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025; Principles of
environmental jurisprudence; Change of land use; Cement related
industrial unit; Close proximity to agricultural lands and residential
houses; Change of land use-CLU dated 13.12.2021; Environmental
clearance under EIA Notification, 2006; Preparation and approval
of Master Plans; Master Plan, its binding force, and procedure for
alteration/revision; Control of development and change of land
use permissions; Environmental clearance and siting safeguards;
Reclassification of “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from
“Red” category to “Orange” category; Precautionary principle;
Doctrine of sustainable development; Environmental protection
and development.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2331 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20134 of 2022
With
SLP (C) No. 8495 of 2024 and Writ Petition (C) No(s). 481 and
551 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Mukul Rohatgi, Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Advs., Purushottam Sharma
Tripathi, Ms. Diksha Rai, Abhishek Tripathi, Amit, Ms. Vani Vyas,
Keshav Seghal, Ravi Chandra Prakash.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G., Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Harin P
Raval, Rakesh Dwivedi, Anand Chibber, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr.
Advs., Siddhant Sharma, Ms. Shreya Bansal, Ms. Shrestha
Narayan, Apoorv Shukla, Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Ms. Prabhleen
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 185
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
A. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Apoorv Shukla, Ms. Ishita Farsaiya,
Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Ateevraj Sandhu,
Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Ms. Sherya Jain,
Ms. Riddhi Jad, Ms. Anuradha, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Sriram P.,
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Ms. Udipti Chopra, Ms. Aditi Rathore, Sudeep
Kumar, Gaurav Dhama, Ms. Sushre Sirpa Sahu, Sumit Gaur.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. At the outset, it may be noted that the present judgment is structured
in two parts. The first part addresses the civil appeals arising out of
the Special Leave Petitions and examines the legality of the change
of Land Use and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The
second part separately considers the writ petitions under Article 32
of the Constitution of India, which raise an independent challenge
to subsequent regulatory actions taken during the pendency of the
appeals.
Part I: For SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024 and SLP (Civil) No. 8495
of 2024
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals arise from the common judgment and order
dated 29.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20134 of 2022 and CWP No. 18676 of
2022. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the
writ petitions and upheld the change of Land Use dated 13.12.2021
granted in favour of “Shree Cement North Private Limited”. Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024 has been filed by
the writ petitioners in CWP No. 20134 of 2022. Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 8495 of 2024 has been filed by Vasant Valley
Public School, which was the writ petitioner in CWP No. 18676 of
2022. For ease of reference, the parties shall be referred to as per
their status in SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024. Accordingly, Respondent
No. 9 is Shree Cement North Private Limited, the main contesting
respondent, before this Court.
186 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
4.1. The Appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
8316 of 2024 is a group of agriculturists residing in and around
Sangrur, Punjab. The Appellants state that Respondent No. 9
purchased land admeasuring about 47.82 acres for establishing
a cement related industrial unit in close proximity to their
agricultural lands and residential houses. The Appellant in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8495 of 2024 is Vasant
Valley Public School. The School claims that its premises are
located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site and that
the proposed activity would adversely affect the health and
safety of students and staff.
4.2. On 13.12.2021, the Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion
issued a Change of Land Use1 in favour of Respondent No. 9
for the proposed unit. On 14.12.2021, consent to establish/No
Objection Certificate from the pollution angle was granted under
the Single Window mechanism on the basis of Punjab Pollution
Control Board’s2 consideration. The Appellants contend that the
CLU was granted in a manner not contemplated by the Punjab
Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 19953. The
Appellants also contend that the proposed site falls within a rural
agricultural zone under the Master Plan for Sangrur and that a
red category polluting industry could not have been permitted
at the said location.
4.3. The agriculturist Appellants, therefore, instituted CWP No.
20134 of 2022 before the High Court challenging the CLU
dated 13.12.2021 and the consequent approvals. Vasant Valley
Public School instituted CWP No. 18676 of 2022 raising similar
objections and specifically relied upon the proximity of the
school and other habitations to the proposed site. During the
pendency of the writ proceedings, the High Court passed an
interim order dated 20.09.2022, and the interim arrangement
continued till the writ petitions were finally decided.
1 In short “CLU”
2 In short “PPCB”
3 In short “PRTPD Act”
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 187
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
4.4. By the common judgment and order dated 29.02.2024, the
High Court dismissed both writ petitions. The High Court noted
that as on 13.12.2021, the CLU did not have statutory backing
in the form contemplated by the PRTPD Act. The High Court,
however, upheld the CLU on the reasoning that the Punjab
Regional and Town Planning and Development Board granted
approval in its 43rd meeting dated 05.01.2022. The High Court
treated the said approval as curing the defect and accepted the
stand that the land use permissibility stood validated thereafter.
4.5. The High Court also proceeded on the basis that the decision
taken by the Planning Board on 05.01.2022 was relatable to the
power of amendment of the Master Plan. The High Court relied
upon Section 76 of the PRTPD Act and held that the approval
recorded in the 43rd meeting dated 05.01.2022 could operate to
support the CLU and to sustain the proposed industrial activity.
The High Court further proceeded on the premise that the
competent authorities had considered the relevant siting aspects
and that the CLU itself contained conditions and restrictions.
The High Court observed that if the conditions stipulated in the
CLU were violated, the affected persons would be at liberty to
pursue appropriate remedies.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions and by the upholding
of the CLU dated 13.12.2021, the Appellants have preferred the
present civil appeals.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and we have gone
through the comprehensive material on record. In our considered
opinion, the following questions arise for determination in the present
appeals:
I. Whether the CLU dated 13.12.2021 could have been granted
for the proposed unit when the land use under the Master Plan
for Sangrur treated the site as falling in a rural agricultural zone.
II. Whether the “approval” recorded in the 43rd meeting of the
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board
dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully cure the admitted defect in the
CLU and whether such approval is capable in law of operating
as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the
PRTPD Act.
188 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
III. Whether the siting norms and environmental safeguards,
including the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 and the
relevant regulatory framework, were complied with in relation
to the proximity of habitations and the school, and whether the
process adopted by the authorities satisfies the requirements
of the prevailing legal norms.
7. It is apparent that the controversy before us turns principally on
the statutory scheme governing the Master Plan and control of
development under the PRTPD Act; and the environmental and siting
safeguards applicable to a cement grinding unit as in the present case.
A. PRTPD Act, the Master Plan, its binding force, and the
procedure for alteration/revision
7.1. Chapter X of the PRTPD Act deals with ‘Preparation and
Approval of Master Plans.’ Under the same, Section 70 of the
PRTPD Act lays down the foundational statutory scheme for
the preparation, approval, and legal operation of a Master Plan.
The same has been reproduced hereunder:
“70. Outline Master Plan. - (1) As soon as may be
after the declaration of a planning area and after the
designation of a Planning Agency for that area, the
Designated Planning Agency shall, not later than
one year after such declaration or within such time
as [the State Government may, from time to time,
extend, prepare and submit to the State Government
for its approval a plan (hereinafter called the “Master
Plan”)] for the planning area or any of its part and
the Master Plan so prepared shall –
(a) indicate broadly the manner in which the land in
the area should be used;
(b) allocate areas or zones of land for use for different
purposes;
(c) indicate, define and provide the existing and
proposed highways, roads, major streets and other
lines of communication;
[(cc) indicate areas covered under heritage site and
the manner in which protection, preservation and
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 189
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
conservation of such site including its regulation and
control of development, which is either affecting the
heritage site or its vicinity, shall be carried out.]
(d) include regulations (hereinafter called “Zoning
Regulations”) to regulate within each zone the
location, height, number of storeys and size of
buildings and other structures, open spaces and the
use of buildings, structures and land.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the rules made under
this Act for regulating the form and contents of the
Master Plan, any such plan shall include such maps
and such descriptive matters as may be necessary to
explain and illustrate the proposals in the Master Plan.
(3) [As soon as after the Master Plan has been
prepared under sub – section (1) ,by the Designated
Planning Agency, the State Government, not later
than such time, as may be prescribed, shall direct
the Designated Planning Agency to publish the
existing land use plan and master plan and the
place or places, where the copies of the same may
be inspected, for inviting objections in writing from
any person with respect to the existing land use plan
and master plan within a period of thirty days from
the date of publication.]
(4) [The State Government, after considering the
objections and in consultation with the Board, may,
direct the Designated Planning Agency to modify the
Master Plan or approve it as such.]
(5) [The Designated Planning Agency, after approval
of the State Government, shall publish the final
Master Plan in the Official Gazette, after carrying
out the modifications if any, under intimation to the
State Government within a period of thirty days
from the date of according approval by the State
Government.]”
7.2. The provision makes it clear that the Master Plan is not a
mere policy document or an internal administrative guideline.
190 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
It is a statutory instrument which governs how land in the
planning area is to be used and regulated. The Act places
the primary responsibility for preparing the Master Plan upon
the Designated Planning Agency, which is required to prepare
the plan and submit it to the State Government for approval.
The contents of the Master Plan, as reflected in the statutory
scheme, include the identification and allocation of land into
different zones for specified purposes and the regulatory norms
that will govern development and land use within those zones.
Equally significant is the procedure that Section 70 mandates
before a Master Plan can acquire enforceable effect. The Act
requires that the proposed Master Plan be brought into the
public domain, that the public be afforded an opportunity to
submit objections and suggestions within the prescribed period,
and that such objections and suggestions be considered by
the Designated Planning Agency before the plan is placed for
approval. This is not a procedural formality. It is a statutory
safeguard intended to ensure transparency, participatory
planning, and reasoned decision making, particularly because
zoning and land use decisions have a direct bearing on property
rights, local habitations, public amenities, and environmental
and health concerns.
7.3. The Act then ties enforceability to publication in the Official
Gazette. In other words, the Master Plan becomes operational,
and thereby binding for land use regulation, only upon its
publication in the Official Gazette in the manner contemplated
by the statute. Section 75 of the PRTPD Act reinforces this
principle by reiterating that the Master Plan comes into
operation from the date of such publication, and the same
reads as follows:
“75. [Coming into operation of Master Plan,- The
Master Plan come into operation from the date of
publication, referred in sub-section(5) of section 70.]”
The combined statutory scheme indicates that once the Master
Plan is published and comes into operation, it binds both the
authorities and the public, and land use permissibility is to be
determined with reference to its zoning prescriptions unless the
statute is duly followed to alter or revise the plan.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 191
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
7.4. The same statutory discipline governs review and revision.
Section 76 of the PRTPD Act contemplates periodic review of
the Master Plan, and it permits revision where the statutory
authority considers it necessary. Section 76 reads as follows:
“76(1) At any after time after the date on which the
Master Plan for an area comes into operation, and
atleast once after every ten years, after that date, the
Designated Planning Agency shall after carrying out
such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary
or as directed by the [State Government], prepare
and submit to the Board, a Master Plan after making
alterations or additions as it considers necessary.
(2) The provisions of *[Sections 70 and 75] shall
mutatis mutandis as for as may be possible, apply
to the Master Plan submitted under sub-section (1).”
However, the Act does not treat review as a mechanism
by which land use norms can be altered informally or on
a case by case basis. The provision expressly applies the
publication, objection, consideration, and gazette publication
requirements to a revised Master Plan as well. This legislative
design ensures that revision of the Master Plan, even when
undertaken as part of a periodic review cycle, remains subject
to the same safeguards of notice, participation, and formal
publication which give the Master Plan its legal force in the
first place.
7.5. The Act also provides for the making of minor changes, but
even that power is not arbitrary. Where changes are proposed
to the Master Plan, including changes described as minor, the
statutory scheme requires that the State Government’s direction
and the fact of change be brought to the notice of the public in
the manner contemplated by the Act. The underlying principle
is that a change in zoning or land use permissibility cannot
rest only upon internal file notings, minutes, or administrative
approvals. Where the change alters the operative land use
framework that binds the public and the authorities, the statute
insists upon transparency and public notice so that the Master
Plan continues to remain a legally certain and publicly knowable
instrument of planning regulation.
192 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
B. Control of development and “change of land use”
permissions
7.6. Once a Master Plan has come into operation in the manner
contemplated by the PRTPD Act, the statutory command is
that land use and development within the planning area must
conform to the zoning and regulatory prescriptions of the Plan.
Section 79 to 81 in Chapter XI of the PRTPD Act provides for
the same and has been reproduced hereunder:
79. After the coming into operation of any Master Plan
in any area, no person shall use or permit to be used
any land or carry out any development in that area
otherwise than in conformity with such Master Plan:
Provided that the Competent Authority may allow the
continuance of any use of any land, for a period not
exceeding ten year, upon such terms and conditions
as may be provided by regulations made in this behalf
for the purpose and to the extent, for and to which it
was being used on the date on which such a Master
Plan came into operation.
80. After coming into operation of any Master Plan
in any area and subject to the other provisions of
this Act, no development in respect of, or change of
use of, any land shall be undertaken or carried out,
in that area –
(a) without obtaining the permission in writing as
provided for hereafter; and
(b) without obtaining a certificate from the Competent
Authority certifying that the development charge or
betterment charge as leviable under this Act has been
paid or that no such charges are leviable:
[Provided that except in the case of development,
affecting heritage site or its vicinity, no such
permission shall be necessary-]
(i) for operational constructions and constructions in
the area comprised in the abadi-deh of any village
falling inside its Lal Lakir or Phirni;
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 193
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
(ii) for carrying out such works for the maintenance,
improvement or other alteration of any building which
affect only its interior or which do not materially affect
the external appearance of the building ;
(iii) [….] for the carrying out by the Central Government
or the State Government or any local authority of,-
(a) any work required for the maintenance or
improvement of a high way, road or public street,
being work carried out on land within the boundaries
of such highway, road or public street;
(b) any work for the purpose of inspecting, repairing
or renewing any drains, sewers, mains, pipes, cables
or other apparatus including the breaking open of any
street or other land for that purpose ;
(iv) for the excavations (including wells and tubewells)
made in the ordinary course of agricultural operation
or for such constructions which are made for
agricultural purposes subservient to agriculture :
Provided that such excavation or constructions are
situated in the areas in which agriculture is permitted
land use as per the Master Plan ;
(v) for the construction of unmetalled roads intended
to give access to land solely meant for agricultural
purpose.
81.(1) Any person intending to carry out any
development in respect of, or a change of use of any
land or intending to sub-divide his plot or to layout a
private street shall make an application in writing to
the Competent Authority for permission in such form
and containing such particulars and accompanied by
such documents and plans as may be prescribed.
(2)(a) In the case of a Department of the State
Government or the Central Government or a local
authority intending to carry out any development
in respect of, or, change of use of, any land, the
concerned Department or the local authority, as the
194 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
case may be, shall notify in writing to the Competent
Authority of its intention to do so giving full particulars
thereof and accompanied by such documents and
plans as may be prescribed, at least, two months prior
to the undertaking of such development or change,
as the case may be.
(b) Where the Competent Authority has raised
any objection in respect of the conformity or the
proposed development either to any Master Plan
under preparation or to any rules in force at that
time, or due to any other material consideration, the
Department of the State Government or the Central
Government or the local authority, as the case may
be, shall either make necessary modifications in the
proposals for such development or change of use to
meet the objections raised by the Competent Authority
or submit *[to the State Government the proposal for
such development or change of use together with
the objections raised by the Competent Authority
for decision.]
(c) The **[State Government] on receipt of such
proposal together with the objections of the Competent
Authority shall either approve the proposals with or
without modifications or direct the Department of
the State Government or the Central Government
or the local authority, as the case may be, to make
such modifications in the proposals as it considers
necessary in the circumstances.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that no fee shall be payable in the case of
an application made by a Department of the State
Government or the Central Government.
(4) On an application having being duly made under
sub-section (1) and on payment of the development
charge or betterment charges if any, as may be
assessed under Chapter XIII, the Competent Authority
may,-
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 195
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
(a) pass an order –
(i) granting permission unconditionally ; or
(ii) granting permission subject to such conditions as
it may think necessary to impose ; or
(iii) refusing permission ;
(b) without prejudice to the generality of clause (a)
impose conditions –
(i) to the effect that the permission granted is
only for a specified period and after the expiry
of that period, the land shall be restored to its
previous condition or the use of the land so
permitted shall be discontinued; or
(ii) for regulating the development or use of any
land under control of the applicant or for the
carrying out of works on any such land as may
appear to the Competent Authority expedient.
(5) The Competent Authority in considering the
application for permission shall ensure that it is in
conformity with the provisions of the Master Plan
prepared or under preparation under this Act and
where the development or change or use of any land
is likely in the opinion of the Competent Authority to
interfere with the operation of the Master Plan or to
be prejudicial to planned development, or any plan
for development of the Authority, the Competent
Authority may refuse such permission.
(6) Where permission is granted subject to conditions
or is refused, the grounds of imposing such conditions
or such refusal shall be recorded in the order and
such order shall be communicated to the applicant
in the prescribed manner.
(7) *[If the Competent Authority does not communicate
its decision to grant or refuse permission to the
applicant within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of his application in case other
than the heritage site, and within a period of one
196 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
hundred twenty days in the case of heritage site and
development affecting such site, or within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of reply from the
applicant in respect of any requisition made by the
Competent Authority, whichever is later, then such
permission shall be deemed to have been granted
to the applicant on the date immediately following
the date of expiry of the later date without prejudice
to the provisions of this Act, rules and regulations
made thereunder:
Provided that any development carried out in
pursuance of such deemed permission, which is in
contravention of the provisions of the Act, rules and
regulations made thereunder, shall be deemed to
be an unauthorised development for the purposes
of sections 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90.]”
7.7. Section 79 is a prohibition in mandatory terms. It does not
leave the matter to administrative discretion on a case to
case basis. It interdicts the use of land and the carrying out
of development in a manner inconsistent with the operative
Master Plan. The legislative intent is to ensure certainty,
uniformity, and enforceability in planning control, so that the
zoning framework is not diluted by ad hoc departures that
would defeat the Plan’s public purpose.
7.8. Section 80 then provides the complementary statutory control.
Even where a proposed activity is otherwise permissible under
the Plan, the statute mandates that development or change
of use can be undertaken only upon written permission of the
competent authority. This written permission is not conceived
as a substitute for, or an override of, the Master Plan. It is a
regulatory permission which must operate within the discipline
of the Plan and the statute. In other words, Section 80 does not
create a untrammelled executive power to authorise land use
contrary to the Master Plan. It creates a permission regime which
presupposes conformity with the planning framework, and which
is intended to regulate the manner, conditions, and safeguards
subject to which permissible development may proceed.
7.9. Section 81 sets out the structured decision-making process for
grant or refusal of permission. The provision contemplates an
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 197
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
application by the person intending to carry out development,
a time bound decision by the competent authority, the power to
impose conditions while granting permission, and an obligation
to record reasons where permission is refused. The scheme is
designed to ensure that permissions are granted on relevant
considerations, that the decision is not arbitrary, and that the
affected party is informed of the basis of refusal. The deemed
permission clause is also part of this discipline. It operates
as a statutory consequence where the authority fails to act
within the prescribed period. It does not dispense with the
substantive requirements of conformity with the Master Plan
or compliance with other applicable laws.
7.10. The appellate remedy is similarly part of the statutory
architecture. It provides a supervisory forum within the
executive framework, but it does not dilute the binding force
of the Master Plan or the mandatory nature of the statutory
controls in Sections 79 and 80.
C. Environmental clearance and siting safeguards
7.11. Environmental clearance and siting safeguards stand on a
distinct but overlapping legal plane. Under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986, the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred
to as the EIA Notification, 2006) is a delegated legislation
which creates a regime of prior environmental clearance for
specified projects and activities. The requirement of prior
environmental clearance is triggered before commencement
of construction activity or preparation of land at the site. The
statutory design is preventive. It ensures that environmental
impacts, mitigation measures, and site-specific concerns are
assessed at a stage when the project can still be meaningfully
evaluated, conditioned, modified, or declined.
7.12. The EIA Notification, 2006 also prescribes a stage wise process
which includes screening, scoping, public consultation, and
appraisal. These stages are not interchangeable. Each stage
serves a distinct function within the regulatory design, and
public consultation has a specific role in ensuring that persons
likely to be affected can place their concerns on record and that
the appraisal is informed by local conditions and stakeholder
198 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
inputs. Where the project is treated as falling within Category
“B” under the relevant schedule entry, the appraisal is at the
State level through the institutional mechanism of the State
Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority4 and the State
Expert Appraisal Committee5. This classification determines
the forum and the process for appraisal. It does not dilute the
core requirement that the environmental clearance must be
prior and must be obtained before construction or preparation
of land.
7.13. Siting and proximity norms operate as an additional layer
of safeguards, particularly where habitations and sensitive
receptors such as educational institutions are involved. The
PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 prescribes minimum
siting distances for cement plants and grinding units, including
minimum buffers from residential clusters and educational
institutions, and it also requires development of a green
belt along the boundary. These norms reflect a regulatory
framework prescribing that certain minimum separations and
buffers are required to reduce risk of exposure and nuisance
from dust, emissions, noise, and traffic. They function as
minimum protective standards for the purpose of grant of
consent and related pollution control permissions. Compliance
with these standards is relevant to evaluate whether the
regulatory authorities have applied the correct yardsticks
and whether the safeguards imposed are adequate having
regard to the site conditions and the proximity of habitations
and the school.
8. Having set out the statutory scheme governing planning control and
the environmental and siting safeguards, we now turn to the three
issues that arise for determination in these appeals as framed in the
earlier part of this judgment.
Issue I: Whether the CLU dated 13.12.2021 could have been
granted when the site fell in a rural agricultural zone under the
Master Plan for Sangrur.
4 In short “SEIAA”
5 In short “SEAC”
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 199
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
9. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the legal character of the
Master Plan for Sangrur and the zoning prescription governing the
site in question. The material on record, including the reports and
communications relied upon by the parties, proceeds on the consistent
premise that the land purchased by Respondent No. 9 fell in a rural
agricultural zone under the notified Master Plan for Sangrur. It is also
not in dispute that, as per the zoning permissibility then prevailing,
a red category industry was not permissible at the said site.
10. In this backdrop, the CLU dated 13.12.2021 has to be tested on its
own legal footing. This Court has consistently held that a statutory
development plan is not a mere policy statement. It has binding force
and regulates land use in the larger public interest. Any development
contrary to the operative plan is impermissible unless the plan
itself is altered in the manner known to law. The principle has been
reiterated in decisions of this Court in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town
Municipal Council, Udipi6 and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.
Muddappa7, where this Court emphasised that zoning and planned
development norms cannot be diluted by ad hoc departures at the
cost of public interest. The relevant portion from Bangalore Medical
Trust (Supra) is reproduced hereunder:
“48. Much was attempted to be made out of exercise
of discretion in converting a site reserved for amenity
as a civic amenity. Discretion is an effective tool in
administration. But wrong notions about it results in ill-
conceived consequences. In law it provides an option
to the authority concerned to adopt one or the other
alternative. But a better, proper and legal exercise of
discretion is one where the authority examines the fact, is
aware of law and then decides objectively and rationally
what serves the interest better. When a statute either
provides guidance or rules or regulations are framed
for exercise of discretion then the action should be in
accordance with it. Even where statutes are silent and
only power is conferred to act in one or the other manner,
the Authority cannot act whimsically or arbitrarily. It
6 (1974) 2 SCC 506, para nos.26-30
7 (1991) 4 SCC 54
200 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
should be guided by reasonableness and fairness. The
legislature never intends its authorities to abuse the law
or use it unfairly. When legislature enacted sub-section
(4) it unequivocally declared its intention of making
any alteration in the scheme by the Authority, that is,
BDA and not the State Government. It further permitted
interference with the scheme sanctioned by it only if it
appeared to be improvement. The facts, therefore, that
were to be found by the Authority were that the conversion
of public park into private nursing home would be an
improvement in the scheme. Neither the Authority nor
the State Government undertook any such exercise.
Power of conversion or alteration in scheme was taken
for granted. Amenity was defined in Section 2(b) of the
Act to include road, street, lighting, drainage, public works
and such other conveniences as the government may, by
notification, specify to be an amenity for the purposes of
this Act. The Division Bench found that before any other
facility could be considered amenity it was necessary for
State Government to issue a notification. And since no
notification was issued including private nursing home
as amenity it could not be deemed to be included in it.
That apart the definition indicates that the convenience
or facility should have had public characteristic. Even
if it is assumed that the definition of amenity being
inclusive it should be given a wider meaning so as to
include hospital added in clause 2(bb) as a civic amenity
with effect from 1984 a private nursing home unlike a
hospital run by government or local authority did not
satisfy that characteristic which was necessary in the
absence of which it could not be held to be amenity or
civic amenity. In any case a private nursing home could
not be considered to be an improvement in the scheme
and, therefore, the power under Section 19(4) could not
have been exercised.
49. Manner in which power was exercised fell below
even the minimum requirement of taking action on
relevant considerations. A scheme could be altered by the
Authority as defined under Section 3 of the Act. It is a body
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 201
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
corporate under Section 3 consisting of the Chairman and
experts on various aspects, namely, a finance member,
an engineer, a town planner, an architect, the ex-officio
members such as Commissioner of Corporation of the
City of Bangalore, officer of the Secretariat and elected
members for instance, two persons of the State legislature,
one a woman and other a scheduled caste and scheduled
tribe member, representative of labour, representative of
water supply, sewerage board, electricity board, State Road
Transport Corporation, two elected councillors etc. and the
Commissioner. This authority functions through committees
and meetings as provided under Sections 8 and 9. There
is no section either in the Act nor any rule was placed
to demonstrate that the Chairman alone, as such, could
exercise the power of the Authority. There is no whisper
nor there is any record to establish that any meeting of the
Authority was held regarding alteration of the scheme. In
any case the power does not vest in the State Government
or the Chief Minister of the State. The exercise of power
is further hedged by use of the expression, if ‘it appears
to the Authority’. In legal terminology it visualises prior
consideration and objective decision. And all this must have
resulted in conclusion that the alteration would have been
improvement. Not even one was followed. The Chairman
could not have acted on his own. Yet without calling any
meeting of the Authority or any committee he sent the
letter for converting the site. How did it appear to him that
it was necessary, is mentioned in the letter dated April
21, because the Chief Minister desired so. The purpose
of the Authority taking such a decision is their knowledge
of local conditions and what was better for them. That is
why participatory exercise is contemplated. If any alteration
in scheme could be done by the Chairman and the Chief
Minister then sub-section (4) of Section 19 is rendered
otiose. There is no provision in the Act for alteration in
a scheme by converting one site to another, except, of
course if it appeared to be improvement. But even that
power vested in the Authority not the government. What
should have happened was that the Authority should have
202 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
applied its mind and must have come to the conclusion
that conversion of the site reserved for public park into a
private nursing home amounted to an improvement; then
only it could have exercised the power. But what happened
in fact was that the application for allotment of the site
was accepted first and the procedural requirements were
attempted to be gone through later and that too by the
State Government which was not authorised to do so. Not
only that the Authority did not apply its mind and take any
decision if there was any necessity to alter the scheme but
even if it is assumed that the State Government could have
any role to play, the entire exercise instead of proceeding
from below, that is, from the BDA to State Government
proceeded in reverse direction, that is, from the State
Government to the BDA. Every order, namely, converting
the site from public park to private nursing home and even
allotment to BMT was passed by State Government and the
BDA acting like a true subservient body obeyed faithfully
by adopting and confirming the directions. It was complete
abdication of power by the BDA. The legislature entrusted
the responsibility to alter and approve the scheme to the
BDA but the BDA in complete breach of faith reposed in
it, preferred to take directions issued on command of the
Chief Executive of the State. This resulted not only in error
of law but much beyond it. In fact the only role which the
State Government could play in a scheme altered by the
BDA is specified in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 19
of the Act. The former requires previous sanction of the
government if the estimated cost of executing the altered
scheme exceeds by a greater sum than five per cent of
the cost of executing the scheme as sanctioned. And
later if the ‘scheme as altered involved the acquisition
otherwise than by agreement’. In other words the State
Government could be concerned or involved with an altered
scheme either because of financial considerations or when
additional land was to be acquired, an exercise which could
not be undertaken by the BDA. A development scheme,
therefore, sanctioned and published in the gazette could
not be altered by the government.”
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 203
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
11. Once a Master Plan has come into operation under Section 70(5)
of the PRTPD Act read with Section 75 of the PRTPD Act, the
statutory scheme does not contemplate a permission regime where
land use contrary to the operative zoning can be authorised merely
by issuance of a CLU. The prohibition contained in Section 79 of
the PRTPD Act, read with the written permission requirement in
Section 80 of the PRTPD Act and the structured decision-making
framework in Section 81 of the PRTPD Act, makes it clear that a
CLU is not a source of power to override the Master Plan. A CLU
operates as a regulatory permission within the statutory discipline of
the Master Plan. It presupposes that the proposed use is permissible
under the operative planning framework, or that the framework has
already been altered or revised in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by the PRTPD Act. The binding character of the Master
Plan under Sections 70 and 75 of the PRTPD Act, read with the
control on development and land use under Sections 79 to 81 of the
PRTPD Act, requires that land use permissibility be determined with
reference to the operative zoning prescription. It cannot be displaced
by ad hoc permissions.
12. It must be emphasized that when a statute prescribes a particular
manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner and in
no other manner. In the present case, where the Master Plan is
the governing statutory instrument for land use, a departure which
effectively changes land use permissibility must satisfy the statutory
procedure for alteration, amendment, or revision contemplated by
the PRTPD Act. It cannot rest on internal approvals or administrative
convenience. This is also why the High Court’s recording that, as
on 13.12.2021, the CLU did not have statutory backing, assumes
decisive significance. If on the date of its issuance the CLU lacked
statutory support to permit the proposed use in the relevant zone, the
defect is not a mere irregularity. It goes to the root of jurisdiction. A
permission must be lawful when it is granted. It cannot be rendered
lawful by a later event unless the PRTPD Act itself so provides.
13. The CLU dated 13.12.2021 also proceeds on the footing that the site
falls within the notified Master Plan and is treated as a non-conforming
land use zone. In such a situation, a conditional permission issued in
the course of the Section 80 of the PRTPD Act and Section 81 of the
PRTPD Act framework cannot be used to invert the statutory order
204 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by first granting a CLU in a zone where the use is not permissible
under Section 79 of the PRTPD Act and then seeking to sustain it
on the basis of subsequent approvals.
14. We may also note, in this context, that the reliance placed upon
conditions contained in the CLU, and the observation that affected
persons may pursue remedies if such conditions are violated,
cannot answer the foundational objection. Conditions may regulate
the manner in which a permission that is otherwise lawful may be
implemented; they cannot supply jurisdiction where the proposed
land use is impermissible under the operative Master Plan. To accept
conditions as a substitute for conformity with the Plan would invert
the statutory order by permitting what is prohibited under Section
79 of the PRTPD Act first, and leaving compliance with the Master
Plan to future contingencies.
15. It was also urged that the proposed unit would advance industrial
development and employment and that the CLU was processed
under a single-window mechanism. Such considerations cannot
dilute the binding force of the operative Master Plan or the statutory
prohibitions governing land use. Administrative facilitation, however
efficient, must operate within the four corners of the PRTPD Act, and
cannot legitimise a land use that is impermissible under the Plan.
16. The objection founded on alternate remedy or disputed questions of
fact does not carry the matter further. The challenge in the present
appeals goes to the root of statutory competence and legality, namely,
whether a change of land use contrary to the operative Master Plan
could be granted at all. Where jurisdictional legality is in issue, the
matter cannot be non-suited on the plea that factual aspects may
be disputed.
17. For these reasons, we are of the view that the CLU dated 13.12.2021
could not have been granted for the proposed unit when, under the
operative Master Plan for Sangrur, the site fell in a rural agricultural
zone where the proposed activity was not permissible.
Issue II: Whether the “approval” recorded in the 43rd meeting
dated 05.01.2022 could lawfully cure the admitted defect in the
CLU and whether such approval is capable in law of operating
as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the
PRTPD Act
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 205
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
18. We now turn to the reliance placed on the “approval” recorded in
the 43rd meeting of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Board dated 05.01.2022. The record indicates that the
item placed before the Planning Board itself described the proposal
as requiring ex post facto approval, and the minutes record that such
ex post facto approval was granted. The crucial question, however,
is not the label applied by the administration, nor the form in which
the approval is described. The determinative question is whether the
decision recorded on 05.01.2022 is capable, in law, of operating as an
alteration or amendment of the Master Plan so as to retrospectively
validate and cure the admitted defect in the CLU dated 13.12.2021.
19. In our considered view, it is not. Once a Master Plan has come into
operation under Section 70(5) of the PRTPD Act read with Section
75 of the PRTPD Act, it acquires statutory force and becomes the
governing instrument for land use and development within the
planning area. Any change which has the effect of altering land use
permissibility, whether described as an amendment, modification,
or revision, can be brought about only by following the procedure
expressly prescribed by the statute. The review and revision
mechanism under Section 76 of the PRTPD Act does not operate in
isolation. It expressly attracts, by legislative design, the procedural
discipline embodied in Sections 70 and 75, including publication,
invitation and consideration of objections and suggestions, and formal
bringing into operation of the revised position through publication in
the Official Gazette.
20. A decision recorded in the minutes of a meeting, or an internal
approval accorded by an executive or statutory body, does not by
itself amount to an alteration or amendment that has been brought
into legal operation as part of the Master Plan framework. Section
76 empowers the initiation of a revisionary process. It does not
dispense with the mandatory steps that alone give legal efficacy to
a change in the Master Plan. To treat minutes of a meeting as the
functional equivalent of a statutory amendment would be to collapse
the distinction between a proposal to revise and a revision that has
acquired legal force, and would render the procedural safeguards
built into the PRTPD Act otiose.
21. This conclusion becomes inescapable where, as in the present case,
the asserted “approval” has the effect of permitting an otherwise
impermissible industrial activity in a rural agricultural zone, with direct
206 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
consequences for residents, habitations, and a functioning educational
institution. Zoning prescriptions under a Master Plan are not mere
internal guidelines. They represent a considered legislative balance
between competing land uses and are intended to protect public
interest. Any departure which dilutes that balance must satisfy the
full statutory process prescribed for altering the Plan itself. Executive
convenience or post facto endorsement cannot be a substitute for
statutory compliance.
22. Equally, the statutory scheme does not contemplate the curing of
a jurisdictional defect by retrospective administrative approval. A
CLU which is unlawful on the date of its grant for want of statutory
authority does not become lawful merely because a later decision
purports to validate it, unless the statute expressly confers such a
power of retrospective validation. The PRTPD Act contains no such
provision. The legality of the CLU must therefore be tested with
reference to the law and the operative planning framework as they
stood on the date the CLU was granted.
23. Therefore, we hold that where the PRTPD Act occupies the field and
prescribes the manner in which an operative planning instrument
is to be revised or altered, that manner cannot be substituted by
executive decision-making or by treating minutes of a meeting as
the equivalent of an amendment brought into operation under the
Act. The approach adopted by the High Court, which treats the
subsequent approval as curing the illegality of the CLU, cannot be
accepted when the statutory structure does not permit legality to
be supplied to an act which was unlawful when done, by a later
administrative approval which does not itself satisfy the mandatory
requirements governing alteration or revision of the Master Plan.
The High Court’s approach, which proceeds on the premise that
an act lacking statutory backing on the date of its issuance may
nonetheless be sustained by a subsequent ex post facto approval,
is inconsistent with this statutory structure.
24. It was lastly urged that substantial financial investment has been
made pursuant to the CLU and that interference at this stage
would cause prejudice. We are unable to accept this submission.
Expenditure incurred or steps taken in furtherance of a permission
that is unlawful or without statutory authority cannot confer legitimacy
upon the underlying action. No amount of financial investment can
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 207
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
justify the continuation of an illegal project that operates in derogation
of the statutory planning framework and directly impacts the rights
of civilians living in the region.
25. For these reasons, we hold that the “approval” recorded on 05.01.2022
could not lawfully cure the defect in the CLU dated 13.12.2021, and
it is not capable, in law, of operating as an alteration or amendment
of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act.
Issue III: Whether the siting norms and environmental safeguards
applicable to the proposed unit were complied with in the manner
required by law.
26. The present issue arises at the intersection of two distinct, but
complementary, safeguards. The first is the requirement of prior
environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 before
commencement of construction activity or preparation of land at the
site. The second is the siting and proximity discipline applied at the
level of pollution control permissions, including the siting distances
prescribed by the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 for cement
plants and grinding units. These safeguards are intended to operate
in advance. They are designed to prevent avoidable risk to habitations
and sensitive receptors, including educational institutions, and to
ensure that regulatory satisfaction is reached on objective material
and not on assumption.
27. The record indicates that Respondent No. 9 applied for Terms of
Reference with the SEIAA, Punjab, and that Terms of Reference
were granted on 28.09.2021 and amended on 25.11.2021. The record
also indicates that a public hearing was conducted on 19.04.2022
in connection with the process for environmental clearance, and
that environmental clearance has not been granted, with the
parties attributing the pendency to interim orders operating in the
writ proceedings and thereafter in these appeals. These steps,
however, do not dilute the basic position that the requirement of
prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is not
a post facto formality. The statutory scheme proceeds on the basis
that assessment, public consultation, and appraisal must precede
the commencement of construction activity or preparation of land
at the site.
208 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28. Equally, so far as siting is concerned, the PPCB notification dated
02.09.1998 prescribes minimum distances for cement plants and
grinding units, including 300 metres from an educational institution
and 300 metres from a residential area described as a cluster
of 15 pucca houses, apart from other siting parameters. On the
material placed before us, Respondent No. 6 has sought to justify
the grant of the No Objection Certificate dated 14.12.2021 by
stating that it was based on the SDM certification and a site visit
dated 17.11.2021. Respondent No. 9 relies upon material which
states that the school is beyond the prescribed distance when
measured from the periphery of the proposed site and that there
is no residential cluster of 15 pucca houses within the prescribed
radius. The Appellants, on the other hand, dispute this position
and rely upon material to contend that the school and residential
habitations are in closer proximity to the proposed site and that the
prescribed siting safeguards are attracted. The record also refers
to nearby habitations and other establishments in the vicinity. This
material, taken as a whole, indicates that the site is not isolated
and that the proposed unit is in the vicinity of habitations and an
educational institution, which are precisely the kinds of receptors
for which siting safeguards exist.
29. A further difficulty arises from the manner in which compliance
with distance is sought to be established on the material relied
upon by the authorities. Respondent No. 6 acknowledges that the
measurement was carried out from the boundary shown by the
project proponent and then asserts that the distance would increase
if measured from the source of pollution. This approach does not
satisfy the minimum regulatory discipline. Siting norms are not
satisfied by an assumption that the distance may be more when
measured differently. They require demonstrable compliance on the
basis of identified emission sources and verified measurements.
This is more so when, at the relevant stage, the material placed for
consideration did not demonstrably crystallise the emission sources
and their configuration in a manner that would permit verified
assessment of siting compliance on objective parameters. When
the emission sources and their configuration are not crystallised
and verified, a conclusion on siting compliance based on boundary
measurements cannot be treated as a conclusive regulatory
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 209
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
satisfaction, particularly where the school and habitations are
close to the margin.
30. Respondent No. 9 has also sought to contend that the proposed
unit is a clinker grinding unit, that it is assessed at the State level
as a Category “B” project, and that it proposes the use of fly ash
and control systems such as bag filters. These submissions do not
answer the core concern we have. Classification for the purposes
of appraisal under the EIA Notification, 2006 does not displace the
obligation to comply with siting safeguards. Proposed mitigation
measures and conditions in a consent to establish do not substitute
the minimum siting standards, nor do they permit the regulator to
postpone demonstrable compliance to a later stage. In environmental
matters, where a school is in close proximity and where there is
material indicating nearby habitations, the decision-maker must
proceed on the precautionary approach and must demonstrate, on
objective material, that the applicable safeguards have been complied
with. This approach is consistent with the principles reiterated by
various landmark decisions of this Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare
Forum v. Union of India8, M. C. Mehta v. Union of India9 and
Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment
& Animals10, among others.
31. The submissions advanced on behalf of Respondent No. 6 (PPCB),
that the consent to establish/No Objection Certificate was granted on
the basis of the SDM’s report and a site visit, and that compliance
with the siting guidelines can be verified at a later stage while
considering consent to operate, do not meet the legal requirement
of demonstrable compliance at the threshold. Preventive safeguards,
by their very design, cannot be treated as matters to be tested
only after permissions have been granted or after the project has
advanced. Where the regulatory framework prescribes minimum
buffers from habitations and educational institutions, the satisfaction
recorded by the authority must be founded on objective and verifiable
measurements, and not on an assumption that compliance can be
ensured later.
8 (1996) 5 SCC 647
9 (1997) 3 SCC 715
10 (2020) 10 SCC 589
210 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
32. Likewise, Respondent No. 9’s reliance on the grant/amendment of
Terms of Reference, the conduct of public hearing, and proposed
mitigation measures, does not dilute the requirement that statutory
safeguards must operate in advance. Proposed control systems
and future-stage compliances cannot substitute the obligation to
satisfy siting norms and the discipline underlying prior environmental
clearance at the relevant time. Nor can subsequent material or
later regulatory developments be invoked to retrospectively validate
the legality of permissions already found to be without statutory
foundation.
33. For these reasons, we are not satisfied that the siting norms and
safeguards, including the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 and
the regulatory discipline underlying prior environmental clearance
under the EIA Notification, 2006, were complied with in the manner
required by law on the material presently relied upon. Issue III is
accordingly answered in favour of the Appellants.
34. In view of the discussion above, the appeals are allowed.
35. The common judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20134
of 2022 and CWP No. 18676 of 2022 is set aside.
36. The Change of Land Use dated 13.12.2021 granted in favour of
Respondent No. 9 is quashed. Consequently, the No Objection
Certificate/Consent to Establish dated 14.12.2021 issued from the
pollution angle in favour of Respondent No. 9, insofar as it proceeds
on the basis of the said CLU, is also set aside.
37. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as
to costs.
Part II: For Writ Petition (C) 481 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C)
551 of 2025
38. The appellants in the above civil appeals have also filed the present
writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The
appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024
has instituted WP(C) No. 481 of 2025 and the appellant in Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8495 of 2024 have instituted WP(C)
No. 551 of 2025, inter alia, assailing the revised list of industrial
sector categorization issued by the CPCB in January, 2025 and the
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 211
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
consequential notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment,
Forest11 and Climate Change12.
39. During the pendency of the above appeals, the CPCB, in January,
2025, issued a revised list of industrial sector categorisation. Under
the revised list, the activity described as “stand-alone grinding
unit without CPP (Captive Power Plant)” was reclassified from the
“Red” category to the “Orange” category. Shortly thereafter, the
MoEF & CC issued Notifications GSR 84E dated 29.01.2025 and
GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025, namely the Control of Air Pollution
(Grant, Refusal Or Cancellation Of Consent) Guidelines, 2025
and the Control of Water Pollution (Grant, Refusal or Cancellation
of Consent) Guidelines, 2025. The Appellants have accordingly
instituted WP(C) No. 481 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 551 of 2025
seeking, inter alia, quashing of the revised categorisation and
the aforesaid notifications to the extent they relax the applicable
regulatory safeguards for such units.
40. We have gone through the material placed on record in the writ
petitions, including the revised industrial sector categorisation
issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in January, 2025,
the Notifications GSR 84E dated 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dated
30.01.2025 issued by the MoEF & CC, and the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the parties.
41. In our considered opinion, the question that arises for determination
in these two Writ Petitions is whether the revised industrial sector
categorisation issued by the CPCB in January, 2025, insofar as
it reclassifies the activity described as “stand-alone grinding unit
without CPP” from the “Red” category to the “Orange” category,
together with the consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory
safeguards brought about by Notifications GSR 84E dated
29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025, can be sustained in
law having regard to the constitutional mandate under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and the governing principles of
environmental jurisprudence.
11 MoEF
12 Climate Change
212 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Rationale advanced by the CPCB for the revised categorisation
42. The determination of the above issue necessarily requires an
examination of the rationale offered by the Central Pollution Control
Board for the revised categorisation, the implications of such
reclassification on preventive environmental safeguards including
siting norms, and the balance that constitutional and environmental
law requires to be maintained between developmental considerations
and the protection of life, health, and the environment.
43. The CPCB has relied upon a revised classification methodology
based on a modified Pollution Index framework, under which industrial
activities are assessed on the basis of their potential to cause air
pollution, water pollution, and waste generation, and are thereafter
assigned a cumulative pollution index. The stated justification for
revisiting the 2016 classification is the experience gained over time,
increased use of cleaner fuels, adoption of cleaner technologies, and
the need to differentiate between integrated industrial operations
and standalone units.
44. A central premise of the CPCB’s reasoning is that a stand-alone
cement grinding unit without a captive power plant has a lower
pollution potential than an integrated cement plant involving clinker
manufacturing and kiln operations. On this basis, the CPCB has
treated such units as a distinct sub-category within the cement sector
and has placed them in the “Orange” category upon application of
the revised scoring methodology. The CPCB has also stated that the
revised methodology was placed in the public domain, representations
were invited, and the final framework was adopted after examination
by a duly constituted committee.
45. The CPCB has further asserted that the revised categorisation
continues to be guided by the precautionary principle and is intended
to function as a regulatory tool for consent management, inspection
frequency, siting decisions, and environmental oversight, while also
incentivising adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies. The PPCB
has substantially adopted this position and has stated that it has
implemented the revised categorisation in terms of the directions
issued by the CPCB.
46. This, in essence, is the rationale advanced by the regulatory
authorities in support of the revised categorisation. The validity of
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 213
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
this rationale, when tested against constitutional requirements and
the governing principles of environmental jurisprudence, now falls
for consideration.
Assessment of the CPCB’s rationale and its legal sustainability
47. Having considered the rationale advanced by the CPCB, we are
unable to accept that the reclassification of a “stand-alone grinding
unit without CPP” from the “Red” category to the “Orange” category,
together with the consequential relaxation of regulatory and siting
safeguards, can be sustained in law.
48. The revised categorisation proceeds on a sector-level assessment
based on a Pollution Index methodology. While such a framework
may serve as a regulatory tool for consent management and
inspection frequency, it cannot be treated as determinative where the
consequence of reclassification is dilution of preventive safeguards,
particularly siting norms intended to protect habitations and sensitive
receptors such as educational institutions.
49. The CPCB’s principal justification rests on a comparative distinction
between integrated cement plants and stand-alone grinding units,
on the premise that absence of clinker manufacturing and captive
power generation necessarily results in lower pollution potential.
This approach, however, does not address the core concern. The
relevant question is not whether a stand-alone grinding unit is less
polluting than an integrated plant in relative terms, but whether its
pollution potential is sufficiently low to justify a regulatory downgrade
that materially relaxes safeguards governing proximity to civilian
habitations.
50. It must be noted that cement grinding units, even without CPP,
involve extensive handling and processing of powdered material,
which inherently gives rise to particulate emissions and fugitive dust.
These emissions have direct public health implications, particularly
where units are located near residential areas and schools. The
revised categorisation does not demonstrate, on objective and publicly
disclosed material, that such exposure risks have diminished to an
extent that warrants dilution of the precautionary standards earlier
applied.
51. The reliance on adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies is
equally unpersuasive. The revised framework proceeds on generic,
214 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sector-level assumptions rather than on demonstrated, site-specific
performance. Preventive environmental regulation does not permit
safeguards to be relaxed on the assumption that mitigation will suffice
at a later stage. Where the risk to life and health is foreseeable,
safeguards must operate at the threshold.
52. Notably, the CPCB itself recognises that the precautionary principle
governs categorisation and that deviation from a mechanical
application of methodology is warranted where activities pose a high
risk of environmental or ecological harm. This recognition undermines
the argument that a uniform application of the revised methodology
can justify dilution of siting norms in sensitive contexts. The relaxation
of minimum siting distances under Notifications GSR 84E dated
29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025 further aggravates the
concern. Permitting activities with known particulate emission profiles
to be located closer to habitations and educational institutions, without
a sector-specific justification demonstrating redundancy of earlier
safeguards, cannot be regarded as reasonable or proportionate.
53. We are therefore of the view that the revised categorisation and the
consequential regulatory relaxations elevate a generic classification
methodology to a position where it overrides preventive environmental
safeguards, without adequate regard to exposure risks, local
conditions, or the constitutional obligation to protect life and health.
Such an approach is inconsistent with the precautionary principle,
the doctrine of sustainable development, and the content of Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
Constitutional threshold for interference with regulatory
classification
54. As a general rule, this Court exercises circumspection in interfering
with technical classifications and regulatory frameworks formulated
by expert bodies. Matters such as industrial categorisation and
pollution indices ordinarily fall within the domain of specialised
authorities, and judicial review is not invoked merely because a
different regulatory choice is possible. Intervention is confined to
cases where the decision-making process or its consequences
transgress constitutional limits.
55. However, this principle of restraint cannot apply where a regulatory
classification has the direct and foreseeable effect of diluting
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 215
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
safeguards that protect fundamental rights. When a classification
decision results in a blatant erosion of preventive protections
governing exposure to environmental hazards, the issue ceases to
be a matter of technical regulation alone and assumes constitutional
significance.
56. This Court has repeatedly recognised that while judicial restraint is
the norm in matters involving policy choices and expert regulation,
environmental adjudication occupies a distinct constitutional
space. Where executive or regulatory action has the effect of
exposing communities to foreseeable environmental harm or
diluting preventive safeguards that protect life and health, judicial
intervention is not an act of activism but a discharge of constitutional
duty. This position has been consistently affirmed in landmark
decisions such as Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of
India (Supra), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram - Oleum
Gas) 13, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India14, and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu15,
where this Court held that when scientific uncertainty coexists
with a credible risk to human health or the environment, courts
must err on the side of protection. These decisions underscore
that environmental governance is not immune from constitutional
scrutiny, and that judicial intervention becomes imperative where
regulatory choices undermine the fundamental right to a clean
and healthy environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
57. In the present case, the revised categorisation and the consequential
relaxation of siting safeguards materially affect the level of protection
available to civilians, including residents and school-going children,
against exposure to industrial pollution. By lowering the regulatory
threshold applicable to an activity with known particulate emission
characteristics, the revised framework permits such units to be located
closer to habitations and educational institutions. The impact is not
speculative. It directly implicates public health and safety.
13 (1987) 1 SCC 395
14 (1996) 3 SCC 212
15 (1999) 2 SCC 718
216 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
58. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Preventive environmental safeguards, including siting norms, are the
means by which this right is protected. Where such safeguards are
relaxed without a demonstrable and reasoned basis showing that
the underlying risk has been materially reduced, the resulting action
infringes the substantive content of Article 21. Further, Article 14 of
the Constitution of India also comes into the picture. A regulatory
downgrade that weakens environmental protection must bear a
rational nexus to the object of safeguarding life and health. In the
absence of a proportionate and scientifically substantiated justification,
such dilution is arbitrary. Arbitrariness that impacts life and health
cannot be sustained under constitutional scrutiny.
59. The precautionary principle which was recognized as the law of the
land by this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (Supra), and
which underlines environmental governance in this country, mandates
that where there is a plausible risk of harm, regulatory frameworks
must err on the side of protection. In the present case, the revised
categorisation prioritises sectoral differentiation over preventive
protection, without adequately addressing exposure risks in sensitive
contexts. This Court does not interfere with classification merely
because it concerns industrial activity. The present intervention is
warranted because the impugned actions have the effect of lowering
the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to affected
communities. Where regulatory action compromises fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, judicial
review becomes a constitutional necessity rather than an intrusion
into policy.
Concluding Remarks and Operative Directions
60. Before we proceed to the operative directions, it is necessary to
underscore, in clear terms, the constitutional balance that must
govern questions of development and environmental protection.
Economic development and industrial growth are legitimate and
important objectives of the State. However, in a constitutional
framework founded on the rule of law, development is not an abstract
or absolute goal. It is conditioned by the non-derogable obligation
to protect life, health, and environmental integrity. Development that
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 217
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
undermines these foundational values ceases to be constitutionally
permissible development.
61. We believe that the doctrine of sustainable development is not a
slogan of compromise but a principle of prioritisation. It requires
that when developmental activity poses a credible risk to human
health or environmental safety, regulatory frameworks must err on
the side of protection. The Constitution does not permit a trade-off
where civilian life and health are exposed to foreseeable harm on
the assumption that economic benefit or industrial facilitation justifies
such exposure. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India do
not tolerate a regulatory calculus that treats environmental safety
as negotiable.
62. If regulatory dilution of the kind impugned in the present case were
to be accepted, it would mark a fundamental shift in environmental
governance. Sector-level reclassification, divorced from exposure
realities and local sensitivities, would become a ready instrument to
justify siting of polluting activities in close proximity to habitations,
schools, and other sensitive receptors. Such an approach would not
remain confined to the present case. It would operate as a precedent,
enabling progressive erosion of preventive safeguards across regions,
with cumulative and irreversible consequences. The law does not
permit environmental protection to be weakened incrementally until
harm becomes inevitable.
63. Equally important is the recognition that environmental harm, once
caused, is often irreversible or incapable of full remediation. Public
health consequences, degradation of air quality, and long-term
ecological damage cannot be undone by subsequent regulatory
correction. It is for this reason that environmental regulation is
designed to be preventive rather than reactive. A regulatory framework
that allows risk to materialise first and seeks to address consequences
later is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional environmental
jurisprudence.
64. At the same time, we reiterate that this Court does not ordinarily
interfere with technical classifications or policy determinations
made by expert bodies. Judicial restraint in matters of regulatory
policy remains a settled principle. However, restraint cannot extend
to abdication. Where regulatory action results in a lowering of
the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to citizens,
218 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
particularly in matters affecting life and health, judicial intervention
becomes a constitutional obligation. The present case falls squarely
within that exceptional category.
65. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that
the revised industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB in
January, 2025, insofar as it reclassifies the activity described as a
“stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from the “Red” category
to the “Orange” category, cannot be sustained in law. The said
reclassification, read together with the consequential relaxation of
siting and regulatory safeguards brought about by Notifications GSR
84E dated 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dated 30.01.2025, has the
effect of diluting preventive environmental protections in a manner
that infringes the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India.
66. Accordingly, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 481 of 2025 and Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 551 of 2025 are allowed to the following extent:
I. The revised industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB
in January, 2025 is quashed insofar as it reclassifies the activity
described as a “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from
the “Red” category to the “Orange” category.
II. Notifications GSR 84E dated 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dated
30.01.2025 issued by the MoEF&CC are quashed insofar as
they relax the applicable siting and regulatory safeguards for
such units on the basis of the aforesaid reclassification.
67. Consequently, any consent, approval or permission that has been
granted solely on the basis of the aforesaid reclassification of “stand-
alone grinding unit without CPP” as an “Orange” category activity
or on the basis of the relaxed siting and regulatory safeguards
introduced by Notifications GSR 84E dated 29.01.2025 and GSR
85E dated 30.01.2025 shall not survive and shall stand withdrawn,
and the concerned authorities shall take all consequential steps in
accordance with law.
68. We clarify that this judgment shall not preclude the CPCB or the
MoEF & CC from undertaking a fresh exercise of classification or
regulatory review in accordance with law, provided that any such
exercise is supported by a reasoned, transparent, and scientifically
substantiated assessment, and is consistent with the precautionary
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 219
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
principle and the constitutional mandate to protect life, health, and
the environment.
69. With the above directions, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 481 of 2025 and
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 551 of 2025 stand disposed of.
70. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
Writ Petitions disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land use under the Master Plan for Sangrur"Sign in to search