Supreme Court Upholds Environment Ministry Notification, Junks Exemption Clause For Big Projects
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the January 29 notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, but struck down the contentious clause exempting certain large building and construction projects from prior environmental clearance.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held projects with a built-up area above 20,000 square meter, whether industrial, educational, or otherwise, cannot be exempted from the environment impact assessment (EIA) 2006 regime.
The court clarified that the notification would also apply to Kerala.
Dictating the order, the CJI said, "It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time, courts have always taken note of development activities and the country cannot progress without it." Observing the supreme court had always focused on sustainable development, the CJI said, "The court while ensuring that development is permitted has also required precaution to be taken so that least damage is caused to the environment and has even ordered costs to be paid for such development activities." The order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis.
"If any construction activity in any area more than 20,000 sq km is carried out it will have environmental impact even if it's for industrial or educational purposes and discrimination cannot be made with similar such institutes," it said.
It also said that no exemption can be granted to the education sector in this regard.
"Nowadays education has also become a flourishing industry and thus no reason to exempt such projects from the 2006 notification," the CJI said.
The bench upheld the notification except clause 8 of the January 29 notification which grants exemptions to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with built-up areas up to 150,000 square meter.
The bench said it was impractical for the MoEFCC to appraise every project nationwide, noting the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEA) could handle state-wise evaluations.
On February 25, the top court stayed the notification on a PIL filed by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption diluted the EIA's safeguards and threatened eco-sensitive zones.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said similar attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 had been struck down or stayed by courts, including the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court.
The petition claimed that bypassing EC for projects of such magnitude, exceeding 1.6 million square feet, would cause irreversible damage to land, water, and air quality, violating the precautionary principle entrenched in Indian environmental law.
Before the January 29 amendment, EIA 2006 required EC for all construction projects above 20,000 sq m The impugned notification raised the threshold to 150,000 sq m for certain categories and also removed "general conditions" applicable in eco-sensitive and polluted areas.
A follow-up office memorandum on January 30 expanded the scope of exemptions to include private universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds housing machinery or raw material.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds environment ministry notification, junks exemption clause for big projects
New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the January 29 notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, but struck down the contentious clause exempting certain large building and construction projects from prior environmental clearance. The Supreme Court order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis(Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times) A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held projects with a built-up area above 20,000 square meter, whether industrial, educational, or otherwise, cannot be exempted from the environment impact assessment (EIA) 2006 regime. The court clarified that the notification would also apply to Kerala. Dictating the order, the CJI said, 'It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time, courts have always taken note of development activities and the country cannot progress without it.' Observing the apex court had always focused on sustainable development, the CJI said, 'The court while ensuring that development is permitted has also required precaution to be taken so that least damage is caused to the environment and has even ordered costs to be paid for such development activities.' Also Read: Over 70,000 housing units stalled across MMR amid green clearance hurdle The order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis. 'If any construction activity in any area more than 20,000 sq km is carried out it will have environmental impact even if it's for industrial or educational purposes and discrimination cannot be made with similar such institutes,' it said. It also said that no exemption can be granted to the education sector in this regard. Also Read: Mumbai sees redevelopment projects worth ₹18,000 crore amid signs of softening sales: Here's what you need to know 'Nowadays education has also become a flourishing industry and thus no reason to exempt such projects from the 2006 notification,' the CJI said. The bench upheld the notification except clause 8 of the January 29 notification which grants exemptions to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with built-up areas up to 150,000 square meter. The bench said it was impractical for the MoEFCC to appraise every project nationwide, noting the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEA) could handle state-wise evaluations. On February 25, the top court stayed the notification on a PIL filed by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption diluted the EIA's safeguards and threatened eco-sensitive zones. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said similar attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 had been struck down or stayed by courts, including the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court. The petition claimed that bypassing EC for projects of such magnitude, exceeding 1.6 million square feet, would cause irreversible damage to land, water, and air quality, violating the precautionary principle entrenched in Indian environmental law. Also Read: Over 25,000 buildings in Mumbai Metropolitan Region eligible for redevelopment with ₹30,000 cr value: CREDAI-MCHI Before the January 29 amendment, EIA 2006 required EC for all construction projects above 20,000 sq m The impugned notification raised the threshold to 150,000 sq m for certain categories and also removed 'general conditions' applicable in eco-sensitive and polluted areas. A follow-up office memorandum on January 30 expanded the scope of exemptions to include private universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds housing machinery or raw material.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Condemn Israel's actions in Gaza, civil society members urge govt.
The India Palestine Solidarity Forum (IPSF), a coalition of civil society leaders and people's movements, submitted a detailed memorandum to MPs on July 27, urging the government to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza for what it calls 'the ongoing genocide, forced starvation, and ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine by Israel.' Signed by over two dozen eminent figures including Medha Patkar, Tushar Gandhi, Prashant Bhushan, Anand Patwardhan, and retired judge Justice Kolse Patil, and several advocates, journalists, authors, activists, social workers and political parties, the memorandum demands 'decisive' Indian leadership in global calls for a permanent ceasefire, humanitarian relief, and accountability for alleged Israeli war crimes. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday (August 5, 2025), Dr. Sunilam, president of IPSF, stressed the urgency of the moment. 'The memorandum urges the Government of India to unequivocally and categorically condemn the ongoing genocide, forced starvation, and ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine by Israel.' Feroze Mithiborwala, general secretary of IPSF, called the silence of the Indian government on this 'historic moral issue' alarming. 'This statement bears the endorsement of some of India's most prominent civil society leaders,' he added. Addressed to both houses of Parliament, the memorandum outlines four broad demands: make and lead calls for a permanent ceasefire and humanitarian access in Gaza; restore India's moral authority in foreign policy by reaffirming support for Palestinian statehood and ending all agreements, military, security, agricultural, technological, with the Israeli government and related entities; reject Western propaganda, support independent and fact-based journalism, and uphold international justice mechanisms; and, ensure parliamentary oversight, transparency and public dialogue on India's Gaza policy. Tushar Gandhi, president of Hum Bharat Ke Log, said, 'The Modi government must condemn Israel for the genocide and war crimes being committed in Gaza. India must play a proactive role in ensuring Israel ends the policy of starvation and allows humanitarian essentials, food, water, medicines, to be provided to the Gazan population.' The memorandum presents statistics to highlight the humanitarian crisis. Since October 2023, over 58,000 deaths have been officially reported in Gaza, the majority of them women and children. Independent assessments, including those by The Lancet and The Economist, place the figure between 77,000 and 1,09,000. Over 1.9 million have been displaced, with infrastructure—including hospitals, bakeries, and water systems—systematically destroyed. Aid convoys and humanitarian workers have come under fire, and the UN Special Rapporteur has described Gaza's condition as a 'man-made famine' the memorandum said.
Mint
37 minutes ago
- Mint
Moscow backs Delhi as Trump warns of higher tariffs in 24 hours
In a sharp escalation of trade tensions, US president Donald Trump on Tuesday warned that he would impose higher tariffs on Indian goods within 24 hours, citing India's continued purchases of Russian oil. In an interview with CNBC, Trump accused India of fuelling Russia's war in Ukraine and labelled it the 'highest tariff nation," claiming that India benefits from US trade while not offering reciprocal access. 'With India… what people don't like to say is they have the highest tariff of anybody. We do very little business with them because their tariffs are so high," Trump said, adding, 'We settled on 25%, but I think I'm going to raise that very substantially over the next 24 hours, because they're buying Russian oil. They're fueling the war machine." Russia swiftly stepped up to India's support, denouncing the US stance as part of a 'neo-colonial agenda" aimed at arm-twisting sovereign nations. The spat comes amid ongoing trade negotiations between India and the US, and growing friction over Washington's tariff actions. Steel duty Earlier in the day, India's minister of state for commerce Jitin Prasada told Parliament that New Delhi has not received any response from Washington to its request for consultations under a WTO agreement regarding the steep 50% duty imposed by the US on Indian steel, aluminium, and related products. The US has cited national security concerns, a claim India disputes. 'India has accordingly reserved its right to suspend substantially equivalent concessions (right to impose equal trade measures in response) as the US has not complied with its obligations under the AoS," Prasada said, referring to the WTO's Agreement on Safeguards (AoS). While Prasada's statement was in the context of US tariffs on metals, it reflects a wider hardening of India's position as the US now threatens additional duties tied to geopolitical differences. India and the US have held five rounds of talks on a Bilateral Trade Agreement since March this year, the most recent in Washington from 14-18 July. Prasada also said, 'To safeguard the interests of farmers and domestic industry, international trade negotiations allow for inclusion of sensitive, negative or exclusion lists—categories of goods on which limited or no tariff concessions are granted." 'Intentional targeting' Trade analyst Ajay Srivastava, founder of the think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), said the US is intentionally targeting India because New Delhi has refused to bring non-negotiable issues such as agriculture and dairy to the discussion table. 'It's a known fact that China imports far more oil from Russia than India does; yet, the US is silent on Beijing. This selective pressure on India reflects strategic targeting, not just trade concern," Srivastava said. In 2024, China imported $62.6 billion worth of Russian oil, compared to India's $52.7 billion, as per GTRI data. 'Even the US continues to import uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear sector, palladium for EVs, fertilizers and chemicals from Russia, and the European Union remains a key buyer of Russian crude oil, LNG, and petroleum products. Then why is India being singled out?", he asked. Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova rebuked the US over the tariff measures, accusing Washington of 'pursuing a neocolonial agenda" and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. On the US raising tariff barriers against key Global South partners, Zakharova said such actions 'cannot halt the natural course of history." She added that sanctions and restrictions have become a defining feature of the current global order. 'Unable to accept the erosion of its dominance in an emerging multipolar world, Washington continues to impose politically motivated economic pressure on those choosing an independent path," she said. Indian action A day earlier, New Delhi had called the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable." In a statement issued on late Monday, the Ministry of External Affairs had said that like any major economy, India would take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security. 'The US itself continues to import uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear sector, palladium for EVs, fertilizers and chemicals from Russia," the ministry had said. The statement noted that India's Russian oil purchases were driven by a need to secure affordable and reliable energy after traditional suppliers shifted exports to Europe at the start of the Ukraine conflict. 'At the time, the US had actively encouraged India's oil imports from Russia to help stabilize global markets," it added. India's energy imports are aimed at ensuring price stability for domestic consumers, the ministry said, contrasting this with continuing trade between Russia and its critics. 'Unlike India, such trade is not a national compulsion for them," it said. The European Union, it said, recorded €67.5 billion worth of goods trade with Russia in 2024, while services trade stood at €17.2 billion in 2023. Europe's LNG imports from Russia also hit a record 16.5 million tonnes in 2024, surpassing the previous peak of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022. EU-Russia trade also spans fertilizers, mining goods, chemicals, metals and machinery. Russian oil India's oil imports from Russia have declined recently. In May 2025, purchases fell 9.8% to $9.2 billion compared to a year ago, official data shows. In FY24, India exported about $70.1 billion worth of refined petroleum products globally. Europe emerged as the largest regional destination, with exports to the continent valued at $18.4 billion, according to data from the Ministry of Commerce. The Netherlands alone accounted for about $10.9 billion, representing nearly 25% of India's total petroleum product exports during this period—the highest share among European countries—highlighting its role as a key transit hub for Indian refined fuel entering the EU market. This trend has triggered concerns among Western nations that India's trade route could be serving as a backdoor for Russian oil entering the European market. In FY25, the value of India's crude oil imports from Russia stood at about $50.3 billion, making it the largest supplier of crude to India, surpassing traditional sources like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. India imported around 1.75 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian oil between January and June 2025, making it the top supplier in that period. Mint reported on 2 August that India will continue to buy oil from Russia, notwithstanding the penal threat and public criticism from the US earlier this week. In fact, India is even reaping a bigger discount on these purchases. Crude cargoes State-owned refiners—Indian Oil Corp. Ltd (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd (BPCL), and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd (HPCL)—are continuing to procure oil from Russian suppliers. Negotiations are also underway for fresh spot deals, as reported by Mint. The last two or three cargoes have been booked at a discount of up to $3 a barrel, compared to about $1.7 in the earlier purchases, and it is likely to rise further, even if not significantly, after Trump's censure of India for its Russian energy purchases, Mint reported. The discounts on Russian oil have narrowed down to single-digit from the high of around $30 per barrel in 2022. India's state-run oil marketers are also in joint discussions with US firms to secure cooking gas supplies starting next year, signalling a potential deepening of energy ties. The companies are exploring long-term arrangements with American exporters. India traditionally imports most of its LPG from West Asian countries including Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia through long-term contracts, while other major LPG importing countries source it from the US. The US so far has been supplying India LPG in small volumes through spot deals, and this is the first time the Indian companies may have a term deal with US suppliers. On the other hand, China has been a major buyer of LPG from the US.
