This article has been written by Hari sri vidya Lalithambica, a law student from Padala Rama Reddi Law College.
In the Honourable Supreme Court of India
Noble M. Paikada
vs
Union of India
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1249, 2024 INSC 241
Date of Judgment: 21st day of March, 2024
Bench: Abhay S. Oka (Author) and Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Overview of the Case
The case of Noble M. Paikada vs. Union of India involves a legal challenge against a series of notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) regarding environmental clearances for projects involving the extraction of ordinary earth and dredging activities. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered on March 21, 2024, found that the blanket exemptions provided under the notifications were arbitrary and violated procedural requirements outlined in the Environmental Protection Rules. The Court emphasized the necessity of balancing developmental needs with environmental protection, reinforcing the requirement for prior environmental clearances for projects with potential ecological impacts. The judgment nullified the problematic exemptions and underscored the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making, setting a precedent for future regulatory actions.
Facts of the Case
The case revolves around a series of notifications on environmental clearances for projects involving the extraction of ordinary earth and dredging activities, particularly in the context of regulatory exemptions.
The appeals challenged an order from the National Green Tribunal, principal bench, New Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as the “NGT”), dated 28th day of October, 2020, which upheld a Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (Hereinafter referred to as “MoEF&CC”) notification issued on 14th day of September, 2006 under Section 3(2)(V)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (Hereinafter referred to as EP Act, 1986) read with Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 (Hereinafter referred to as EP Rules, 1986), exempting certain categories of projects from requiring prior environmental clearance (Hereinafter referred to as “EC”).
The notification (Hereinafter referred to as “First EC Notification”) categorized projects into two main types: **Category A**, which required clearance from the Central Government due to potentially significant environmental impacts, and **Category B**, which required clearance from state-level regulatory authorities.
Specifically, the notification exempted:
- Item 6: Extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects (like roads and pipelines).
- Item 7: Dredging and de-silting activities for the maintenance and disaster management of dams, rivers, and canals.
Over the time, the First EC Notification was modified to introduce additional categories and exemptions. On 15th day of January, 2016, the MoEF&CC issued a new notification (Hereinafter referred to as “Second EC Notification”) that partially amended First EC Notification by introducing Appendix IX. This appendix contained specific exemptions from the requirement of prior Environmental Clearance for certain maintenance and upkeep activities. Among the exempted activities, **Item 6** of Appendix IX permitted dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, rivers, and canals for maintenance and disaster management purposes without an EC.
On March 28, 2020, shortly after the COVID-19 lockdown was imposed, the MoEF&CC issued the notification (Hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Notification”), which introduced broader exemptions under Appendix IX of the First EC notification. This notification added **Item 6** to Appendix IX, exempting the “extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth” for linear projects—such as roads, pipelines, and other similar infrastructure—from requiring prior EC. Additionally, the pre-existing **Item 6** was renumbered as **Item 7**, thereby extending the previous exemption for dredging and de-silting.
The rationale given in the notification’s recitals included the need to align environmental regulations with amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) and requests from the public to waive EC requirements for certain infrastructure-related activities. However, the notification also stated that public notice requirements under Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules were waived under Rule 5(4) “in public interest” without providing detailed justification.
During the case proceedings, the MoEF&CC attempted to address some of the concerns raised by the appellant by issuing an amendment in August 2023(Hereinafter referred to as “Amended Impugned Notification”). This amendment modified Item 6 of Appendix IX by specifying that any extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects would be subject to compliance with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and other environmental safeguards issued periodically. This amendment introduced a requirement for some regulatory oversight, but it retained the general exemption from prior EC. The appellant argued that these modifications did not sufficiently address the fundamental issues, particularly because the notification still lacked specific guidelines on the quantity and geographic scope of permitted earth extraction. Furthermore, the SOPs were not detailed or enforceable enough to mitigate the risks associated with large-scale earth extraction, which could result in significant environmental impact.
Issues Presented
- Did the government follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 5 of the EP Rules, particularly regarding public notice and consultation?
- Does the exemption for certain projects align with the objectives of the EP Act, or does it contravene environmental protection principles?
- Was the MoEF&CC’s decision to grant blanket exemptions arbitrary, and did it violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
- Does the notification violate earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, which mandated ECs for projects involving extraction of minor minerals?
Arguments by Both Sides
Appellant’s Arguments (Noble M. Paikada)
The appellant contended that the government failed to issue prior notice or invite public objections as mandated by Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules. They argued that the government’s invocation of “public interest” under Rule 5(4) to bypass this procedure was unjustified.
Furthermore, the appellant asserted that item 6 would prevent regulation of the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads. They argued that this blanket exemption would defeat the very purpose of the EP Act, 1986. The appellant also cited Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, asserting that EC for minor mineral extraction projects are required by law, and that blanket exemptions contradict this mandate.
They maintained that unrestricted earth extraction for linear projects undermined the objectives of the EP Act and established jurisprudence emphasizing the need for environmental impact assessments.
The appellant claimed that the exemption was overly broad, lacking specific limits on the quantity or area of extraction, and failed to define “linear projects.” They asserted that such ambiguity rendered the exemption arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (equality before the law).
Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)
The government argued that the notification aligned with insertion of Section 8B to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act), which necessitated adjustments in the EP Act’s requirements.
The government contended that the exemptions were consistent with sustainable development principles, aiming to streamline procedures for specific project types deemed necessary for public welfare.
After NGT’s order, the government amended the notification to add Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for these exemptions, thereby introducing regulatory oversight.
Judgment Analysis
The Supreme Court of India delivered a comprehensive judgment, addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding environmental clearances.
Majority Opinion: Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the Court, found that the exemption under Item 6 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as it created a broad exemption without adequate safeguards. The Court noted that MoEF&CC had not conducted public consultations as required under Rule 5(3) of the Environment Protection Rules, and the use of Rule 5(4) for a public interest exemption was unsupported by sufficient justification.
The judgment emphasized that:
- Any exemption from environmental clearance must balance developmental needs with environmental protection. A blanket exemption without limits on the quantity of earth extracted or clarity on the types of “linear projects” permitted under the exemption failed this balance.
- The Court highlighted that the MoEF&CC failed to provide reasons for the public interest exemption or consult the public, violating procedural requirements.
- The Court criticized MoEF&CC for not revisiting the exemption in response to the NGT’s suggestions to implement safeguards on excavation processes and environmental compliance.
The Court ultimately quashed Item 6 from both the original and amended notifications, noting that no adequate mechanism was in place to enforce the SOP, and the exemption was overly broad.
The Court upheld the requirement for environmental clearances for projects involving the extraction of ordinary earth. It reiterated that all projects that have the potential to cause environmental degradation must undergo a rigorous assessment process.
The Court noted that the exemption from environmental clearances was overly broad and lacked specific criteria. This ambiguity rendered the exemption arbitrary and violated the principles of equality before the law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Legal Principles and Precedents Established
- The Court reinforced its decision in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, which mandated ECs for minor mineral extractions to prevent indiscriminate resource exploitation.
- This judgment highlighted the need for transparency and adherence to due process, especially in public-interest environmental matters.
- By ruling that blanket exemptions without sufficient safeguards violate Article 14, the Court emphasized the requirement for specificity and oversight in environmental policy exemptions.
- The ruling strengthened the doctrine of sustainable development, requiring that all policy decisions involving natural resources consider environmental impact as well as economic gain.
Impact and Implications
The immediate effect of this judgment is that item 6 of the Impugned Notification and Amended Impugned Notifications are quashed, meaning linear projects must seek ECs where relevant, and the government must provide clear guidelines if it intends to exempt specific projects in the future.
This judgment strengthens the role of judicial oversight in environmental matters, establishing that procedural shortcuts in environmental clearances will not be tolerated. It underscores the importance of public participation in environmental policymaking.
This ruling may prompt the government to reassess how it issues exemptions under environmental laws and introduce more detailed guidelines and restrictions for future notifications.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a pivotal affirmation of environmental protection principles within India’s legal framework. By nullifying the exemptions related to the extraction of ordinary earth and dredging activities, the Court not only upheld the necessity of environmental clearances but also reinforced the importance of public participation in the regulatory process. This judgment effectively highlights the critical balance that must be maintained between developmental ambitions and ecological sustainability.
Moreover, the ruling sets a clear standard for future regulatory practices, emphasizing that any exemptions from environmental assessments must be narrowly defined, transparent, and backed by solid justifications. The Court’s insistence on adherence to procedural norms serves as a reminder that governmental actions impacting the environment must prioritize accountability and stakeholder engagement. As such, this judgment is likely to influence how environmental policies are formulated and implemented in the future, ensuring that the voices of affected communities are heard and considered in the decision-making process.
In essence, the case marks a significant step toward more responsible environmental governance in India, urging authorities to act judiciously in the face of development pressures while safeguarding the country’s natural heritage for future generations.
References
- Relevant Statutes and Cases:
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Environemntal Protection Rules, 1986
- Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012 4 SCC 629
- Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, 2019 15 SCC 401
- Notifications:
- Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006
- Modified Notification (28th March 2020)
