A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal challenges the National Green Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No.239/2021 that restrained further construction by The Auroville Foundation and directed preparation of a township plan, appointment of a Joint Committee to inspect the Crown Road alignment, and conditional permitting of completion of limited stretches of the road subject to environmental safeguards.

The primary legal tension is whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to entertain the application where no specific violation of the enactments listed in Schedule I (notably the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986) was proved, and whether application of the precautionary principle justified directions that effectively interfered with an approved statutory Master Plan (approved by the Town and Country Planning Organisation in 2001) and implementation decisions taken under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because no substantial question arising from the implementation of a Schedule I enactment was shown; it further held that by directing preparation of a fresh township plan and imposing environmental clearance requirements contrary to the stand of the MoEF&CC, the Tribunal exceeded its remit and substituted judicial review for executive/administrative decision-making. The appeals were allowed and the impugned NGT orders quashed.

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

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from tree-felling and road-construction activity in the Auroville township, specifically works on the Crown Road and an outer ring road identified in the approved Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025. Petitioners before the Tribunal alleged large-scale cutting of trees and displacement of the Darkali forest cover, invoking protection principles established in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and seeking injunctive relief and directions for a detailed development and mobility plan with environment impact assessment.

The Auroville Foundation relied on its statutory Master Plan approved in 2001 by the Town and Country Planning Organisation, and on the constitutional and statutory framework that governs Auroville under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988, including Standing Orders for implementation via the Auroville Town Development Council. The MoEF&CC informed the Tribunal that the Township project pre-dated the EIA Notification amendments of 2004 and that the project did not qualify as a ‘new project’ requiring fresh environmental clearance; it also took the view that the disputed lands were not statutorily classified as ‘forest’ requiring clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The NGT granted interim protection against tree-felling, investigated the status of the lands, and ultimately applied the precautionary principle, directed formation of a Joint Committee (including the District Collector and forest officers), ordered tree-planting at a 1:10 ratio for trees felled, and directed preparation of a comprehensive township plan and environmental clearance before further construction directions the Supreme Court would later characterize as exceeding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because no specific violation of a Schedule I enactment was pleaded and established.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Mother conceptualized Auroville in 1968. A revised Master Plan (1972) and subsequent statutory Master Plan was adopted by the Auroville Foundation in 1999 and approved by the Town and Country Planning Organisation on 15.02.2001; notification followed in 2010. Since then, over two thousand substantial constructions have occurred. In 2021 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.A. No.239/2021 before the NGT alleging that the Foundation was executing roads from the Master Plan especially the Crown Road by cutting large numbers of trees in areas referred to as Darkali forest, allegedly a deemed forest deserving protection under the Godavarman jurisprudence.

They sought interim prohibitory relief against tree-felling and a direction to prepare a Detailed Development Plan and mobility plan with impact assessments. The NGT initially restrained cutting and later, after hearings, held that the immediate area did not qualify as ‘forest’ under Forest (Conservation) Act criteria, but still applied the precautionary principle, directed environmental clearance for future activity, constituted a Joint Committee to inspect and recommend route-width/realignment/tree-protection measures, allowed limited completion of crown road stretches under committee recommendations, and imposed a 1:10 afforestation obligation.

The MoEF&CC maintained the project was not a ‘new project’ requiring EC and that the Foundation’s Master Plan pre-dated EIA amendments. The Supreme Court was petitioned challenging the NGT’s directions as beyond jurisdiction and as interference with a statutory Master Plan and administration under the Auroville Foundation Act.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the NGT had jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 to entertain O.A. No.239/2021 where no specific violation of enactments in Schedule I was pleaded or established?

ii. Whether a mere allegation of tree-felling within lands not shown to be statutorily a ‘forest’ can constitute a substantial question relating to environment under Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act?

iii. Whether the NGT could, in exercise of precautionary principle powers, direct preparation of a fresh township plan and require environmental clearance for continuation of works already authorized by an approved statutory Master Plan?

iv. Whether the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 (a special Act with overriding effect) curtails the NGT’s capacity to issue directions that interfere with implementation of an approved Master Plan and statutory governance arrangements of Auroville?

v. Whether the MoEF&CC’s stand that the project pre-dated the EIA amendments is determinative of EC applicability absent evidence of material scope change in the Township project?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The Auroville Foundation contended before the Supreme Court that the NGT exceeded its statutory jurisdiction because the Original Application did not allege violation of any specified enactment in Schedule I, and that therefore no substantial question relating to environment (as defined in Section 2(1)(m)) arose.

The Foundation emphasized that the Master Plan had been prepared, approved and notified under statutory processes (1999–2001) and implementation steps including the Crown Road construction proceeded pursuant to those approvals and standing orders issued under Section 11(3) of the A.F. Act. The appellant relied on the special status and overriding effect of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 Section 27 to show that directions inconsistent with statutory governance and the Master Plan could not be imposed by the NGT.

The Foundation also relied on the MoEF&CC affidavit that the project was not a new project requiring EC, and therefore the Tribunal’s direction to seek EC and to prepare a fresh township plan was unwarranted. It argued that the Tribunal had entered the domain of administrative review and second-guessed planning decisions without statutory basis.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The original applicants before the NGT argued that the cutting of large numbers of trees and disturbance of the Darkali forest created environmental harm with potential public consequence and therefore constituted a substantial question relating to environment. They invoked T.N. Godavarman and pleaded that the lands were deemed forest and required protection.

The respondents urged application of the precautionary principle under the NGT Act and asked for proactive measures including halting felling, preparing a detailed development/mobility plan, and obtaining environmental clearances before further manifestation of the Master Plan roads.

They asserted the NGT’s mandate to provide relief and restitution justified appointment of a Joint Committee to minimize tree loss and protect water bodies during road works.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court undertook statutory construction of Section 14 read with the definition of “substantial question relating to environment” in Section 2(1)(m). It observed that jurisdiction under Section 14 is not plenary for all environmental grievances; the Tribunal must be shown a specific violation of an enactment in Schedule I or a substantial question arising from implementation of such enactment. Citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development and H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee, the Court reiterated that mere environmental concerns or localized disputes do not automatically invoke NGT jurisdiction.

On facts, the NGT itself had found that the disputed area was not a statutory ‘forest’ and that governmental documents did not treat it as such; having so held, the Tribunal could not proceed to impose Forest (Conservation) Act or EC requirements absent pleading and proof of statutory contravention. The Court noted the MoEF&CC’s position that the Auroville Township project pre-dated the EIA Notification amendments and that there was no demonstrable change in project scope warranting fresh EC. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the precautionary principle and intruded into planning and implementation decisions that had statutory sanction.

The Court emphasized the statutory primacy of the Auroville Master Plan approved in 2001 and the special status of the A.F. Act which confers overriding effect under Section 27. The impugned directions to prepare a fresh township plan, to seek EC notwithstanding the MoEF&CC’s stand, and to supervise project re-design effectively substituted the Tribunal’s judgment for executive and statutory authorities. The Court therefore quashed the impugned orders as beyond jurisdiction.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal ratio is that the National Green Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction under Section 14 only when a substantial question relating to environment is shown to arise out of implementation of an enactment specified in Schedule I; mere ecological concern or interlocutory findings that may point to environmental sensitivity are insufficient.

Where the Tribunal has itself found on record that the disputed tract does not constitute ‘forest’ for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and where the MoEF&CC has affirmed that the township works pre-date EIA Notification amendments and that project scope remains unchanged, an order imposing fresh environmental clearance requirements and directing re-drafting of a statutory Master Plan is ultra vires.

Application of the precautionary principle cannot expand statutory jurisdiction or permit the Tribunal to assume functions of planning and administrative authorities. The NGT must identify the specific statutory obligation alleged to have been violated and show how that violation gives rise to the substantial question; absent this, the Tribunal’s orders are legally untenable.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated environmental jurisprudence balancing right to clean environment under Articles 14 & 21 with right to development under Articles 14, 19 and 21, endorsing sustainable development as the governing paradigm. It restated the place of the precautionary and polluter pays principles within environmental adjudication but cautioned against their invocation as carte blanche for tribunals to encroach upon matters of urban planning, statutory Master Plans, and administrative policy.

The judgment references international instruments such as the Brundtland Report and Stockholm Declaration (as considered in precedents like Essar Oil), affirming that environmental principles must be applied without usurping statutory decision-making processes.

c. GUIDELINES

i. The NGT must, at the threshold, require pleadings and material that identify specific alleged violations of enactments in Schedule I; generalized environmental grievances are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 14.

ii. If a Tribunal concludes on recorded material that a disputed tract does not qualify as ‘forest’ under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it should not, without more, proceed to impose the regime of that statute or require clearances premised on such classification.

iii. Application of the precautionary principle must be proportionate, supported by material showing possible significant environmental harm, and may not be employed to displace statutory-authority decisions such as approved Master Plans or to direct re-drafting of plans which have statutory force.

iv. Where a central regulatory authority (MoEF&CC) gives an affidavit-based position concerning applicability of EIA notifications and EC requirements, the Tribunal should require cogent material to the contrary before directing fresh EC or halting implementation.

v. Where limited, targeted remedial steps (e.g., route realignment, minimized width, tree-planting in identified locations, protection of water bodies) are necessary to mitigate environmental impact, the Tribunal may recommend or direct such measures only if within its statutory remit and supported by legally relevant findings.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for tribunals to respect statutory boundaries while remaining vigilant in environmental protection. The judgment clarifies that the NGT’s jurisdictional gatekeeping is substantive the Tribunal must identify contraventions of Schedule I enactments or show substantial environmental consequences linked to the statutory regime before issuing sweeping remedial directions.

The decision highlights the special character of projects approved under dedicated statutory schemes like the Auroville Foundation Act and deploys institutional comity by deferring to regulatory conclusions of MoEF&CC absent contradicting material. Practically, the ruling cautions environmental litigants to frame pleadings with specific statutory breach allegations and robust evidence rather than broad ecological concerns alone.

At the same time, the Court reaffirmed core environmental principle precautionary principle, polluter pays, and sustainable development but constrained their operational reach where they would substitute judicial discretion for administrative planning. The judgment thus attempts to recalibrate the balance between development and environment by insisting on legal thresholds for jurisdiction and by protecting the integrity of statutory planning instruments.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267.

ii. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

iii. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & 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.

vii. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 21).

ii. Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.

iii. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

iv. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (ss.2(1)(m), 14, 15, 19, 20; Schedule I).

v. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification (2006 & amendments).