Supreme Court of India
VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 961
- Decided
- 5 August 2025
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
Holding
The Court upheld the 2025 notification but struck down Note 1 to Entry 8(a) as arbitrary, while also upholding the Office Memorandum dated 30 January 2025.
Summary
The petition challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 29 January 2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the accompanying Office Memorandum of 30 January 2025, which altered the regime of environmental clearance for building and construction projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the 2006 Schedule. The petitioner argued that the new notification, particularly Note 1 exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels, diluted earlier safeguards and was contrary to the purpose of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Court examined the literal wording of the 2006 notification, the applicability of General Conditions, and the need to balance environmental protection with sustainable development. It held that while the 2025 notification could be upheld, Note 1 was arbitrary and had to be struck down, and the clarificatory Office Memorandum was valid. Consequently, the writ petition was partly allowed, the 2025 notification (excluding Note 1) and the Office Memorandum were upheld, and Note 1 was quashed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the 2025 notification and its exclusion of Note 1 to Entry 8(a) under the Environment Protection Act, 1986
- Whether exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels from General Conditions is arbitrary and lacks a rational nexus with the Act's purpose
- Whether the Office Memorandum dated 30 January 2025 is adverse to environmental interests
- Whether the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) remains the appropriate body to consider projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) after the 2025 notification
Legislation cited
Headnote
760 : 2025 INSC 961 Vanashakti v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration The present petition challenges the notification dated 29.01.2025 (impugned notification) bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by Construction Projects – Environmental clearance – Challenge to Notification dated 29.01.2025 and O.M. dated 30.01.2025 – According to the petitioner, the impugned notification dated 29.01.2025 totally changes the regime, which was provided by the notification dated 14.09.2006
Subjects
Notification dated 29.01.2025Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025General ConditionsNotification dated 14.09.2006State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of SchedulePrinciples of sustainable developmentBuilt up areaRational nexus with the object to be achieved
Judgment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 760 : 2025 INSC 961
Vanashakti
v.
Union of India
(Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025)
05 August 2025
[B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.]
Issue for Consideration
The present petition challenges the notification dated 29.01.2025
(impugned notification) bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)
and the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 30.01.2025 issued by
the MoEF&CC.
Headnotes†
Environment – Protection – Construction Projects –
Environmental clearance – Challenge to Notification dated
29.01.2025 and O.M. dated 30.01.2025 – According to the
petitioner, the impugned notification dated 29.01.2025 totally
changes the regime, which was provided by the notification
dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests:
Held: The notification dated 29.01.2025 excluding Note 1 to
Entry 8(a) is upheld – Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of the notification
dated 29.01.2025 is arbitrary and is quashed and set aside –
The clarificatory O.M. dated 30.01.2025, which has also been
impugned in the present petition, rather than being adverse to the
environmental interest is conducive to the environmental interest,
inasmuch as it also makes the conditions applicable to the State of
Kerala – Thus, the O.M. dated 30.01.2025 issued by the MoEF&CC
is also upheld. [Paras 44-47]
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Notification dated
14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests – Notification dated 29.01.2025 issued by the Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) –
Whether the exemption of applicability of 2006 notification,
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 761
Vanashakti v. Union of India
by way of Note 1 in column 5 of Entry 8(a) of the impugned
notification (Notification dated 29.01.2025), to the projects or
activities for industrial shed, school, college and hostel for
educational institution appears to be in tune with the purpose
for which the Environment Protection Act:
Held: The impugned notification dated 29.01.2025 is upheld – This
Court is of the considered view that the exemption of applicability
of 2006 notification, by way of Note 1 in column 5 of Entry 8(a) of
the impugned notification, to the projects or activities for industrial
shed, school, college and hostel for educational institution does not
appear to be in tune with the purpose for which the Environment
Protection Act has been enacted – It cannot be gainsaid that if any
construction activity for an area of more than 20,000 sq. mtr. is to be
carried out, it will naturally have an effect on the environment and
ecology, even if the building is for industrial shed or for educational
purpose, including hostels etc. – There is neither any rational
nexus with the object to be achieved by excluding such buildings
from the rigors of the notification – Therefore, see no reason to
discriminate the other buildings with the buildings constructed for
industrial or educational purposes. [Paras 40, 42]
Environmental Law – Environmental protection vis-à-vis need
for sustainable development – Discussed. [Paras 31-34]
Case Law Cited
In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands, 2025 INSC 754 – relied on.
In Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary
[2010] 15 SCR 783 : (2011) 1 SCC 744; Vellore Citizens’ Welfare
Forum v. Union of India and Others, 1996 INSC 952 : [1996]
Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647; Jagannath v. Union of
India and Others, 1996 INSC 1466 : [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 848 :
(1997) 2 SCC 87; Consumer Education & Research Society v.
Union of India and Others, 2000 INSC 81 : [2000] 1 SCR 907 :
(2000) 2 SCC 599; Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P.
and Others, 2006 INSC 101 : [2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC
549; Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga
and Others, 2019 INSC 1203 : [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2020) 15
SCC 784; State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education
and Welfare Trust and Others, 2022 INSC 1129 : [2022] 19 SCR
781 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1469 – referred to.
762 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Environment Protection Act, 1986; Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
List of Keywords
Notification dated 29.01.2025; Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change (MoEF&CC); Office Memorandum dated
30.01.2025; General Conditions; Notification dated 14.09.2006;
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA); Entry
8(a) and 8(b) of Schedule; Principles of sustainable development;
Built up area; Rational nexus with the object to be achieved.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Vanshdeep Dalmia, Ms. Anisha
Jain, Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Ms. Shaurya Dasgupta.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms.
Ruchi Kohli, Mukul Rohtagi, Atmaram Nadkarni, Devdatt Kamat,
P.V. Dinesh, Nikhil Goel, Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Advs., Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Mayank Pandey, Ms. Mili Baxi, Ms. Harshita
Choubey, Rohan Gupta, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Ms. Chitransha Singh
Sikarwar, Samit Shukla, Ms. Saakhsi Saboo, Tarpit Patni, Ms.
Sonam Singh, Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Ms. Devanshi Singh, M/s.
Trilegal, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ms. Anna Oommen, Ms. Sanjana
Grace Thomas, D.p.singh, Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Ms. Anchal
Kanthed, Vinayak Bhandari, Arnav Narain, Sanjay Kadam, Ms.
Rajpurkar Sayalee Shrikant, Arvind Gupta, Kunal A Cheema,
Vatsalya Vigya, Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Amol V Deshmukh, Samit
Shukla, Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Shantanu
Singh, Ravi Sehgal.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 763
Vanashakti v. Union of India
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, CJI.
1. The present petition challenges the notification dated 29th January,
2025 bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as
‘the MoEF&CC’) and the Office Memorandum dated 30th January,
2025 issued by the MoEF&CC.
2. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor(s), supporting
the case of the petitioner.
3. We have also heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for the Union of India (MoEF&CC), Shri
Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for
the State of Maharashtra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Atmaram
Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor(s)
and other learned counsel.
4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, submits
that the impugned notification dated 29th January, 2025 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the impugned notification’) totally changes the regime,
which was provided by the notification dated 14th September, 2006
issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the 2006 notification’). Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior
counsel, submits that the Union of India has been making consistent
efforts to dilute the provisions contained in the 2006 notification by
issuing notifications dated 22nd December, 2014 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the 2014 notification’), 9th December, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the 2016 notification’) and 14th and 15th November, 2018
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2018 notification’). It is submitted that
2014 notification was quashed and set aside by the High Court of
Kerala vide judgment and order dated 6th March, 2024. Similarly, it
is submitted that the 2016 notification issued by the MoEF&CC was
quashed and set aside by the National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi vide judgment dated 8th December, 2017. He
further submits that the 2018 notification has been stayed by the
High Court of Delhi by an order dated 26th November, 2018.
764 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the preamble of the
2025 notification does not refer to the judgment of the learned NGT
and the order of the Delhi High Court. It is, therefore, submitted that
the impugned notification suffers from suppression of material facts.
6. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, further submits that
under the 2006 notification, the General Conditions were applicable
to the projects covered under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule.
He submits that under the General Conditions, any project or activity
within 10 kms. from the boundary of:
(i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972,
(ii) Critically polluted areas as identified by the Central Pollution
Control Board from time to time,
(iii) Eco-sensitive areas as notified under Section 3 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, such as Mahabaleshwar
Panchgani, Matheran, Panchmarhi, Dahanu, Doon Valley and
(iv) Inter-State boundaries and international boundaries,
are to be examined only by the MoEF&CC and not by the State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, ‘SEIAA‘).
He fairly concedes that the said restriction of 10 kms., has been
subsequently brought down to 5 kms., by a subsequent notification.
7. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, submits that having
failed in its repeated attempts to dilute the restrictions as provided
in 2006 notification, the MoEF&CC has come with the impugned
notification which has the effect of nullifying the judgments passed
by the High Court of Kerala and the NGT.
8. Shri Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, further submits that
the judgment and order passed by the learned NGT is challenged by
way of an appeal before this Court. It is submitted that a coordinate
Bench of this Court, after hearing the matter at length, on 23rd April,
2025 has reserved the matter for judgment. He, therefore, submits
that as a matter of propriety this Court should refrain from deciding
the issue in order to avoid any conflicting judgments.
9. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India, submits that right from inception, the General Conditions
were never made applicable to the projects or activities covered by
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 765
Vanashakti v. Union of India
Entry 8 of the Schedule. She submits that the perusal of the Schedule
of the 2006 notification would show that wherever it was intended
that the General Conditions would apply, it has been specifically
mentioned in column 5 thereof that the General Conditions would be
applicable. She submits that wherever some other conditions were
to be made applicable, column 5 specifically notes as to what are
the conditions which would be applicable to such activity/project.
She submits that, however, in order to bring clarity and in view of
some of the orders passed by the learned NGT which required the
notification to be issued after following the procedure prescribed by
law, the impugned notification came to be notified.
10. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
intervenor(s), submits that the 2025 notification was brought by the
Union of India, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of In
Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary1.
It is submitted that though this Court has recorded the submission
that for the activity/project in Entry 8(a) and 8(b) general conditions
are not applicable, this Court has opined that certain clarity needs
to be given to the issues so as to put any controversy at rest.
11. Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the
intervenor(s), submits that in Maharashtra alone 700 projects are
pending consideration before SEIAA, which, on account of stay order
granted by this Court could not be considered.
12. It is submitted by all the counsel for the respondent(s) that MoEF&CC
is not equipped with the machinery to consider the entire projects
from all the State/Union Territories in the country and therefore
the 2006 notification itself provides for the projects which could be
considered by the SEIAA.
13. It is, therefore, submitted that the stay on impugned notification has
caused irreparable damage to the developmental activities throughout
the country, inasmuch as all the projects stand stalled on account
of non-consideration by SEIAA.
14. For considering the rival submissions, it will be appropriate to refer
to the particulars of the schedule to the 2006 Notification, which is
extracted hereinbelow.
1 (2011) 1 SCC 744
766 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“SCHEDULE
LIST OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRING
PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
Project or Activity Category with threshold limit Conditions if
any
A B
(1) Mining, extraction of natural resources and power
generation (for a specified production capacity)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
15. It can thus be seen that the Schedule has five columns. In the first
column, serial number of the project or activity is mentioned. In
the second column the details of the activity are mentioned. In the
third column the projects which are approved by the MoEF&CC are
mentioned. In the fourth column, the projects which are approved
by the SEIAA are mentioned and the fifth and the last column deals
with the conditions, if any, which would be applicable.
16. The projects with which we are concerned in the present lis are at
Entry 8 of the Schedule, which reads thus:-
Project or Activity Category with threshold limit Conditions if any
A B
(1) Mining, extraction of natural resources and power
generation (for a specified production capacity)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
8 Building/Construction projects/Area
Development projects and Townships
8(a) Building and >20000 sq. mtrs #(built up area
Construction and <1,50,000 for covered
projects sq.mtrs. of built- construction; in the
up area# case of facilities
open to the sky, it
will be the activity
area)
8(b) Townships Covering an ++All projects
and Area area > 50 ha under item
Development and or built up 8(b) shall be
projects area appraised as
>1,50,000 sq. Category B1
mtrs++
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 767
Vanashakti v. Union of India
17. If we compare column 5 of Entry 8 to Entry 1(a) which deals with mining
of minerals and slurry pipelines (coal lignite and other ores) passing
through national parks/sanctuaries/coral reefs/ecologically sensitive
areas, Entry 1(c) which deals with river-valley projects, Entry 1(d)
which deals with the Thermal Power Plants, Entry 2(a) which deals
with Coal washeries, Entry 2(b) which deals with Mineral beneficiation,
Entry 3(a) which deals with Metallurgical industries (ferrous & non-
ferrous), Entry 3(b) which deals with Cement plants, Entry 4(b) which
deals with Coke oven plants, Entry 4(d) which deals with Choir-alkali
industry, Entry 4(f) which deals with Leather/skin/hide processing
industry, Entry 5(d) which deals with manmade fibers manufacturing,
Entry 5(e) which deals with petrochemical based processing, Entry
5(f) which deals with synthetic organic chemicals industry, Entry 5(g)
which deals with distilleries, Entry 5(h) which deals with integrated paint
industry, Entry 5 (i) which deals with pulp & paper industry, Entry 5(j)
which deals with sugar industry, Entry 6(b) which deals with isolated
storage and handling of hazardous chemicals, Entry 7(c) which deals
with industrial estates/parks, complexes/areas, Export Processing
Zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Biotech parks,
leather complexes, Entry 7(d) which deals with common hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, Entry 7(e) which deals
with ports, harbours, break waters, dredging, Entry 7(f) which deals
with highways, Entry 7(g) which deals with Aerial ropeways, Entry
7(h) which deals with common effluent treatment plants, Entry 7(i)
which deals with common municipal solid waste management facility,
column 5 specifically provides that General Conditions shall apply.
18. It is thus clear that wherever the delegated legislation required the
General Conditions should be applied, the notification specifically
provided for the same.
19. It can clearly be seen that Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule do not
provide for applicability of General Conditions, however, they provide
for some other conditions as can be seen from the 2025 notification.
Project and Category with Conditions, if any
Activity threshold limit
A B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
“8 Building or Construction projects or Area Development Projects and
Townships
768 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8(a) Building and ≥ 20,000 The term “built up area” for
Construction sq.m. the purpose of this notification
projects and < is defined as the built up or
1,50,000 covered area on all floors
sq. m. of put together, including its
built up basement and other service
area areas, which are proposed in
the building or construction
projects.
Note 1. The projects or
activities shall not include
industrial shed, school,
college, hostel for educational
institution, but such buildings
shall ensure sustainable
environmental management,
solid and liquid waste
management, rain water
harvesting and may use
recycled materials such as fly
ash bricks.
Note 2. “General Conditions”
shall not apply.
8(b) Townships Covering A project of Township and
and Area an area Area Development Projects
Development ≥ 50 ha covered under this item shall
Projects and/or require an Environment Impact
built up Assessment report and be
area ≥ appraised as Category ‘B1’
1,50,000 Project.
sq. m.
Note. “General Conditions”
shall not apply.
20. Insofar as 2014 notification is concerned, the same, as fairly accepted
by Shri Shankaranarayan, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, was quashed and set aside by the Kerala
High Court on 06th March, 2024 in WP(C) No. 3097 of 2016 on a
technical ground, since the procedural formalities for publication of
the notification was not found in consonance with the final notification.
21. Insofar as the judgment and order of the learned NGT dated 08th
December, 2017 is concerned, what has been set aside is (i) clause
14(8) of the 2016 notification which provided for establishment of
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 769
Vanashakti v. Union of India
the Environmental Cell at the level of State Governments or local
authorities, (ii) the provisions relating to exclusion of Consent to
Operate and Consent to Establish under Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 in clause 14 of 2016 notification and (iii) Appendix-XVI
to the said notification relating to constitution and functioning of the
said Environmental Cell.
22. It is thus clear that the issue that arises for consideration in the
present lis was not an issue for consideration before the learned NGT.
In any case, the Environmental Cell at the level of a municipal body
cannot be equated with SEIAA, which is a statutory body constituted
by the Central Government under a statute namely the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. The learned NGT was, therefore, justified in
holding that an important task of granting environmental clearances
cannot be entrusted to a body at the municipal level. However, at
the cost of repetition, it is observed that the SEIAA is a statutory
body comprising of experts.
23. Insofar as the order dated 26th November, 2018 passed by the Delhi
High Court granting stay is concerned, the said order considered the
2018 notifications dated 14th and 15th November, 2018 vide which the
area of 20,000 sq.mtr., was increased to 50,000 sq.mtr for Building or
Construction projects or Area Development projects and Townships and
from 20,000 sq.mtr to 1,50,000 sq.mtr for industrial sheds, educational
institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institutions.
24. By the impugned notification, however, there is no variation with
regard to the built-up area of 20,000 sq.mtr. and 1,50,000 sq.mtr
for Building and Construction projects and with regard to Townships
and Area Development projects having an area of 50 ha. to 1,50,000
sq.mtr which was provided in the 2006 notification.
25. Insofar as the second judgment of the learned NGT dated 9th August,
2024 is concerned, no doubt that the learned members of the NGT
have referred to the General Conditions, we, however, find that the
learned NGT has not considered the 2006 notification in its correct
perspective.
26. It is a settled principle of law that while interpreting any legislation
including a subordinate legislation, the first principle that has to be
adopted is the literal rule of interpretation. Applying literal interpretation
to the 2006 notification, it would be clear that said notification does
770 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
not provide for applicability of the General Conditions to projects in
Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. As already observed hereinabove,
wherever the delegated legislation wanted the General Conditions
to be made applicable it has been specifically provided in column 5
of the projects/activities.
27. At the cost of repetition, we observe that insofar as the projects/
activities at Entries 8(a) and 8(b) are concerned, General Conditions
have not been provided for right from the 2006 notification.
28. It is further to be noted that the judgment dated 09th August, 2024
passed by the learned NGT did not have the benefit of considering
the 2025 notification.
29. We, therefore, see no reason to accept the request of the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner to keep the present matter pending
in order to await the judgment of the coordinate Bench.
30. In any case, the validity of 2025 notification is not being considered
by the Coordinate Bench.
31. No doubt that the courts have consistently insisted upon protecting
environment and consistently held that the natural resources are
held in trust by the present generation for the future generations.
However, at the same time, the courts have also consistently taken
into consideration the need for developmental activities.
32. A country cannot progress unless the development takes place. As
such, this Court in a catena of decisions has adopted the principle
of sustainable development. Some of the notable decisions of this
Court are Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and
Others2, Jagannath v. Union of India and Others3, Consumer
Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others4,
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others5, Tata
Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga and
Others6 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education
and Welfare Trust and Others7.
2 1996 INSC 952 : (1996) 5 SCC 647
3 1996 INSC 1466 : (1997) 2 SCC 87
4 2000 INSC 81 : (2000) 2 SCC 599
5 2006 INSC 101 : (2006) 3 SCC 549
6 2019 INSC 1203 : (2020) 15 SCC 784
7 2022 INSC 1129 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1469
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 771
Vanashakti v. Union of India
33. A reference in this respect can also be made to the recent judgment
of this Court rendered In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands8, wherein all the
earlier judgments of this Court have been considered by a coordinate
bench, to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, CJI.) was a party. It would be
apposite to refer to paragraphs 117, 118 and 119 of the said judgment:
“117. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the
balance between environmental protection and the need
for sustainable development. It will be apt to refer to paras
87-88 of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust (2022
SCC OnLine SC 1469), which read thus:
“87. It cannot be disputed that Section 20 of the
NGT Act itself directs the learned Tribunal to
apply the principles of sustainable development,
the precautionary principle and the polluter pays
principle. Undisputedly, it is the duty of the State
as well as its citizens to safeguard the forest
of the country. The resources of the present
are to be preserved for the future generations.
However, one principle cannot be applied in
isolation of the other.
88. It is necessary that, while protecting
the environment, the need for sustainable
development has also to be taken into
consideration and a proper balance between
the two has to be struck.”
118. Much prior to that, this Court, in the case of Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others (1996)
5 SCC 647 : 1996 INSC 952, had an occasion to consider
the conflict between the development and ecology. This
Court observed thus:
“10. The traditional concept that development
and ecology are opposed to each other is no
longer acceptable. “Sustainable Development”
8 2025 INSC 754
772 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is the answer. In the international sphere,
“Sustainable Development” as a concept
came to be known for the first time in the
Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in
1987 the concept was given a definite shape
by the World Commission on Environment and
Development in its report called “Our Common
Future”. The Commission was chaired by
the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H.
Brundtland and as such the report is popularly
known as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the
World Conservation Union, United Nations
Environment Programme and Worldwide Fund
for Nature, jointly came out with a document
called “Caring for the Earth” which is a strategy
for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth
Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw
the largest gathering of world leaders ever
in the history — deliberating and chalking
out a blueprint for the survival of the planet.
Among the tangible achievements of the Rio
Conference was the signing of two conventions,
one on biological diversity and another on
climate change. These conventions were signed
by 153 nations. The delegates also approved
by consensus three non-binding documents
namely, a Statement on Forestry Principles,
a declaration of principles on environmental
policy and development initiatives and Agenda
21, a programme of action into the next century
in areas like poverty, population and pollution.
During the two decades from Stockholm to
Rio “Sustainable Development” has come to
be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate
poverty and improve the quality of human
life while living within the carrying capacity
of the supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable
Development” as defined by the Brundtland
Report means “Development that meets the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 773
Vanashakti v. Union of India
needs of the present without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their
own needs”. We have no hesitation in holding
that “Sustainable Development” as a balancing
concept between ecology and development
has been accepted as a part of the customary
international law though its salient features have
yet to be finalised by the international law jurists.”
119. The principle of Sustainable Development as a
balancing concept between ecology and development has
been accepted as a part of the Customary International
Law by this Court in various judgments including
S. Jagannath v. Union of India(1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996
INSC 1466, Consumer Education & Research Society v.
Union of Indiaand Others (2000) 2 SCC 599 : 2000 INSC
81, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. (2006) 3
SCC 549: 2006 INSC 101 and Tata Housing Development
Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga(2020) 15 SCC 784 :
2019 INSC 1203.”
34. It is thus clear that the courts have taken a view that while development
is permitted to be undertaken, it is also required that a precaution
is needed to be taken so that the least damage is caused to the
environment and ecology. The courts have also insisted upon the
mitigation and compensatory measures so as to compensate the
loss which is caused to the environment and ecology on account of
the damage that would be caused by the developmental activities.
35. As already submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, it is not possible for the MOEF&CC to consider the projects
from all the states of the country. We are in agreement with the same.
In any case, we are of the considered opinion that the SEIAA is a
body of experts constituted/appointed by the Central Government
itself and it is better equipped to undertake study qua environmental
impact of proposed projects in the respective state/union territory.
36. We, therefore, see no reason as to why the SEIAA should not be
permitted to consider the proposal pertaining to the respective States/
Union Territories, if it is a properly constituted body in accordance
with the statute.
774 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
37. As a matter of fact, the 2006 notification itself provides for the
constitution and appointment of members of SEIAA. From paragraph
3 of the said notification it can be seen that the SEIAA consists of
three members out of which one shall be the Member Secretary, who
is required to be a serving officer of the concerned State Government
or Union Territory administration familiar with environmental laws and
other two members shall either be a professional or expert fulfilling
the eligibility criteria given in Appendix VI to the notification; one of
them who is an expert in the Environmental Impact Assessment
process, shall be the Chairman of the SEIAA. The procedure as to
how the SEIAA shall conduct impact assessment and arrive at a
decision is also prescribed under the said notification.
38. Another reason that is given for issuance of 2025 notification is that
the 2006 notification was somewhat ambiguous with regard to the
built up area as was observed by this Court in the case of In Re:
Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
39. Accordingly, in the 2025 notification, the “built up area” has been
specifically defined to be the built up or covered area on all floors
put together including the basement and other service areas, which
are proposed in the building or construction project.
40. While we are inclined to uphold the impugned notification, we are
of the considered view that the exemption of applicability of 2006
notification, by way of Note 1 in column 5 of Entry 8(a) of the impugned
notification, to the projects or activities for industrial shed, school,
college and hostel for educational institution does not appear to be
in tune with the purpose for which the Environment Protection Act
has been enacted.
41. Ms. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor of India, submits that the
detailed guidelines have been provided so as to ensure that the
industrial shed, school, college and hostel for educational institution
shall adhere to the environmental aspects. Moreover, we find that
no mechanism like the impact assessment to be done by an expert
body like SEIAA has been provided in the said guidelines.
42. It cannot be gainsaid that if any construction activity for an area of
more than 20,000 sq. mtr. is to be carried out, it will naturally have
an effect on the environment and ecology, even if the building is
for industrial shed or for educational purpose, including hostels etc.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 775
Vanashakti v. Union of India
There is neither any rational nexus with the object to be achieved
by excluding such buildings from the rigors of the notification. We,
therefore, see no reason to discriminate the other buildings with the
buildings constructed for industrial or educational purposes.
43. It is by now common knowledge that education is no more exclusively
a service oriented activity and that it has in fact become a flourishing
and thriving industry. We, therefore, see no reason behind the
exemption of 2006 notification to the industrial or educational buildings
by way of Note 1 in Column 5 of the 2025 notification.
44. Insofar as the clarification by O.M. dated 30th January, 2025, is
concerned, it only clarifies that the 2025 notification would also be
applicable to the State of Kerala.
45. It can thus be seen that the clarificatory O.M. dated 30th January,
2025, which has also been impugned in the present petition, rather
than being adverse to the environmental interest is conducive to the
environmental interest, inasmuch as it also makes the conditions
applicable to the State of Kerala.
46. Therefore, while upholding the impugned notification dated 29th
January, 2025, we hold that Note 1 to Entry 8(a) is arbitrary and
liable to be quashed and set aside.
47. In the result, we pass the following order:
i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed;
ii. The notification dated 29th January, 2025 excluding Note 1 to
Entry 8(a) is upheld;
iii. Note 1 to Entry 8(a) of the notification dated 29th January, 2025
is quashed and set aside;
iv. The O.M. dated 30th January, 2025 issued by the MoEF&CC
is also upheld; and
v. In the facts and circumstances, no orders as to costs.
48. We express our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance
provided by Shri Gopal Sankarnarayanan ably assisted by Shri
Vanshdeep Dalmia, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri
Mukul Rohtagi and Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior counsel.
776 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
49. All the applications for impleadment/intervention are disposed of.
50. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Writ Petition partly allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Notification dated 29.01.2025"Sign in to search