A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, addressed the validity of a notification exempting certain projects from obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC). The focus was on Item 6 of Appendix IX, which granted a blanket exemption for the extraction or sourcing of ordinary earth for linear projects like roads and pipelines. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards, including public participation and environmental considerations, are integral to the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EP Act) and the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 (EP Rules). Striking down the impugned notification, the Court held the provision arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and inconsistent with sustainable development principles. It also highlighted the non-compliance with prior judicial directives and procedural lapses, especially in bypassing the public objection process.

Keywords:

Environmental Clearance, Prior Environmental Clearance, Sustainable Development, Rule 5(4) EP Rules, Article 14.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India
• Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 1628-1629 of 2021
• Judgment Date: 21 March 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
• Author: Justice Abhay S. Oka
• Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1249
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
  • Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986
  • Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution
  • Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act)
• Judgments Overruled: None explicitly stated.
• Related Law Subjects: Environmental Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 28 March 2020. This notification substituted Appendix IX of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, exempting certain activities from obtaining prior EC. Particularly contentious was Item 6, allowing unlimited extraction or sourcing of ordinary earth for linear projects without procedural or regulatory oversight. The appellant, citing violations of Article 14 and environmental safeguards, challenged the legality of the notification before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which directed MoEF&CC to revisit the notification. Dissatisfied with the review process, the appellant escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A 2006 EIA Notification required prior EC for specific projects to ensure environmental safety.
2. In 2016, Appendix IX was introduced to exempt specific projects under narrowly defined conditions.
3. On 28 March 2020, the impugned notification substituted Appendix IX, granting exemptions to activities under Item 6, including extraction for linear projects.
4. The notification was issued during the COVID-19 lockdown and without public consultation, citing “public interest.”
5. The NGT, in its October 2020 order, directed the MoEF&CC to revisit the notification within three months.
6. The appellant alleged procedural lapses, arbitrary decision-making, and violations of constitutional rights.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the impugned notification violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the exemption under Item 6 contravened the EP Act and the principles of sustainable development.
3. Whether procedural safeguards, such as public objections under Rule 5(3), were bypassed unlawfully.
4. Whether granting blanket exemptions undermined environmental protection and regulatory oversight.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The exemption under Item 6 allowed indiscriminate extraction of ordinary earth, violating Article 14.
2. Environmental safeguards were bypassed by arbitrarily invoking Rule 5(4) without justifying public interest.
3. The decision to issue the notification during the nationwide lockdown demonstrated undue haste and lacked compelling reasons.
4. The impugned notification contradicted the Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) judgment, mandating EC for minor mineral extraction.
5. The blanket exemption was vague, lacking definitions or quantifiable limits, and failed to align with sustainable development goals.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The exemption under Item 6 was a policy decision to align with Section 8B of the MMDR Act.
2. Sustainable development principles were upheld by including a requirement for compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and safeguards.
3. Public interest necessitated the exemption to facilitate infrastructure projects during the COVID-19 crisis.
4. The MoEF&CC had deliberated the issue through expert committees, ensuring environmental safeguards.

H) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. The Court held that the impugned notification violated procedural safeguards under Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules.
2. Public participation is crucial for environmental governance and was unjustifiably bypassed.
3. The exemption was arbitrary, vague, and inconsistent with the objectives of the EP Act and Articles 14 and 21.

b. OBITER DICTA

1. The Court observed that public interest cannot be a justification for bypassing statutory safeguards during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

c. GUIDELINES

1. The government must ensure procedural compliance before issuing exemptions under environmental statutes.
2. Exemptions must include clear definitions, quantifiable limits, and regulatory oversight mechanisms.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court struck down Item 6 of the 2020 and 2023 notifications, reiterating the importance of procedural safeguards in environmental governance. The decision underscores the balance between development and environmental protection.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629.
2. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Environment Protection Act, 1986.
2. Environment Protection Rules, 1986.
3. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
4. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.