A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. examined whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions restraining and regulating road-construction activity by the Auroville Foundation and by directing preparation of a new township plan and appointment of a joint committee under the precautionary principle.

The NGT had found a possibility of environmental harm from tree-felling and ordered:

(a) suspension of further cutting until environmental clearance;

(b) limited permission to complete the Crown Road subject to inspection and recommendations of a Joint Committee;

(c) replanting at a 1:10 ratio.

The Supreme Court analysed the NGT’s jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15 and Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and the statutory history of Auroville including its Master Plan approved in 2001 and given statutory force by government notices and the Auroville Foundation’s Standing Orders. The Court held that NGT jurisdiction attaches only where a substantial question relating to environment arises out of implementation of enactments listed in Schedule I. Here, no specific violation of any Schedule-I enactment was pleaded and the NGT itself held the disputed area was not a forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Consequently the NGT misapplied the precautionary principle, intruded into town-planning decisions finalised by competent authority, and directed actions beyond its statutory competence. Orders of the NGT were quashed and appeals allowed.

Keywords: National Green Tribunal; Precautionary Principle; Master Plan; Environmental Clearance; Auroville Foundation; Substantial question relating to environment.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute concerns implementation of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025 approved by the Town and Country Planning Organisation in 2001 and later notified. Auroville is a unique statutory entity created by the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 to implement an experimental international township. The Foundation, with powers under its Standing Orders and the Master Plan, undertook construction works including ring roads and the central Crown Road. Local residents challenged tree-felling and alleged that areas such as the Darkali forest were deemed forest and thus attracted protection under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The petitioners sought injunctive relief and a direction for a detailed development and mobility plan supported by impact assessments. The MoEF&CC maintained that the township pre-dated the EIA notification amendments and that no fresh environmental-clearance requirement arose for ongoing implementation in line with the approved master plan. The NGT initially restrained tree cutting, then allowed completion of the Crown Road conditionally after invoking the precautionary principle, ordering an inspection by a Joint Committee, mandating a 1:10 replanting ratio and directing preparation of a township plan before further construction.

The Supreme Court was called to decide whether the NGT had jurisdiction to issue such directions where no specific violation of Schedule-I enactments had been pleaded and where the Master Plan commanded statutory finality.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Master Plan for Auroville traces to the Mother’s 1968 Galaxy design, revised and finalized with statutory approval in 1999–2001. The plan envisaged roads including the Crown Road and an outer ring. Construction had proceeded over decades and many works pre-dated the EIA regulatory regime. In 2021 Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed O.A. No.239/2021 in NGT alleging cutting of large numbers of trees for Crown Road and encircling roads particularly impacting the Darkali forest.

They sought interim injunctions and directions for a detailed development and mobility plan and environmental assessments. The NGT initially restrained further tree-cutting. MoEF&CC and the Foundation contended environmental clearance was not required because the township was an ongoing project begun before the relevant EIA amendments of 2004 and that the Master Plan’s scope was unchanged. The NGT held the disputed area was not a forest for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, yet applied the precautionary principle and ordered the Joint Committee inspection, tree-planting at 1:10 ratio and directed preparation of a township plan by the Foundation before further construction.

The Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court challenging NGT jurisdiction and lawfulness of directions. The Supreme Court stayed part of the NGT’s order and ultimately set aside the impugned directions as beyond the NGT’s jurisdiction and inconsistent with statutory scheme and prior approvals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the NGT had jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 to entertain the application where no substantial question arising out of implementation of Schedule-I enactments was specifically pleaded.

ii. Whether the precautionary principle authorises the NGT to direct preparation of a township plan and modify implementation of an already approved Master Plan.

iii. Whether the Auroville Township Project required retrospective environmental clearance under the EIA Notification and whether construction pre-dating that regime is exempt.

iv. Whether the disputed area constituted a forest or deemed forest attracting the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 protections.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The Auroville Foundation argued the NGT’s order was beyond jurisdiction. It emphasized that the Master Plan had been approved by Town and Country Planning Organisation in 2001 and notified in 2010, thereby acquiring statutory force. The Foundation contended the township’s construction predates the EIA amendments of 2004 so the MoEF&CC’s stand that no fresh environmental clearance is required was correct. It submitted that no specific violation of any enactment in Schedule-I was alleged. The Foundation also relied on the special status and overriding provisions of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 which give primacy to the Foundation’s governance and planning powers.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The original applicants contended that extensive tree-felling for roads threatened the Darkali forest and that the area should be treated as a deemed forest under the doctrine in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. They urged invocation of the precautionary principle to prevent irreversible environmental harm and sought judicial supervision, inspection, replantation and a comprehensive plan grounded in present-day realities and impact assessment. The respondents argued that even if not strictly a forest under records, the environmental consequences merited NGT intervention.

H) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court analysed Section 14 and the statutory definition of “substantial question relating to environment” in Section 2(1)(m). The Court emphasised two jurisdictional preconditions:

(1) a substantial question relating to the environment must be shown;

(2) such question must arise out of implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I.

The Court relied on precedent reiterating that routine environmental concerns do not automatically satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. It observed that the NGT, despite holding the area was not a forest, proceeded to apply the precautionary principle and to direct planning steps that effectively altered implementation of an approved Master Plan. The Court held that the impugned directions intruded into town planning and administrative spheres reserved for the competent authority and for the Foundation under its special statute. Relying on the statutory history of the Master Plan’s approval, the Court found the NGT’s order to be an unjustified exercise of judicial supervision and thus beyond jurisdiction.

The Court also balanced environmental jurisprudence, reaffirming that precautionary and polluter pays principles are integral, yet must be exercised within statutory bounds and where a Schedule-I violation or a substantial question is pleaded. Given absence of pleading of specific breach and the Government body’s affidavit that the township pre-dated EIA changes, the NGT’s direction that future activities require prior EC and its mandate to prepare a township plan were quashed. Orders were set aside and appeals allowed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that the NGT’s jurisdiction under Section 14 is triggered only when a substantial question relating to environment arises from implementation of enactments listed in Schedule I. The applicant must specifically allege violation of those enactments. Absent such pleading and where the NGT itself finds no forest status, the application of the precautionary principle cannot be used to assume extra-statutory powers to rewrite or stall an already approved Master Plan. The Court thus confined precautionary remedies to contexts where statutory predicates are met.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated environmental maxims: sustainable development must balance right to clean environment and right to development and the precautionary and polluter pays principles are part of domestic environmental jurisprudence. However, the Court warned against the NGT traversing into administrative planning without statutory footing. It emphasized that special statutes like the Auroville Foundation Act may have overriding effect. The Court also underscored adherence to procedural limits of NGT jurisdiction to preserve separation of functions.

c. GUIDELINES

• NGT’s jurisdiction under Section 14 requires pleadings of specific violation(s) of Schedule-I enactments.
• The precautionary principle cannot displace statutory allocation of planning power or be used to issue directions that effectively re-plan an approved township.
• Where major works pre-date EIA amendments and the regulatory authority has opined no fresh EC is necessary, NGT must proceed cautiously and base orders on statutory grounds.
• Special Acts with overriding clauses (e.g., Auroville Foundation Act, 1988) limit intervention by other authorities absent clear statutory breach.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment delineates the boundary between environmental adjudication and administrative domain. It preserves the NGT’s vital role in protecting environment but curtails overreach where jurisdictional preconditions under Section 14 and Schedule I are absent. The Court’s approach respects institutional competence, upholds finality of statutory town-planning approvals, and insists that environmental remedies be grounded in pleaded statutory breaches or demonstrable point-source harms.

The decision does not negate precautionary jurisprudence. Rather it channels it through the statute’s thresholds to prevent substituting judicial planning for administrative action. The ruling signals that future public interest environmental litigation must frame specific statutory violations to attract NGT jurisdiction, and that broad assertions of environmental harm without connection to Schedule-I enactments may not survive judicial scrutiny.

---

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
ii. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 647.
iii. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781.
iv. H.P. Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee, (2021) 4 SCC 309.
v. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 392.
vi. N.D. Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 362.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Secs. 2(1)(m), 14, 15, 19, 20; Schedule I.
ii. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
iii. Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.
iv. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification (2006 and antecedent amendments).