“Earliest Public Communication” Rule for Limitation in Environmental Clearance Appeals:
A Commentary on Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1331

---

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1331, has authoritatively settled an important and recurring question in environmental litigation: When does the limitation period start to run for filing an appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC)?

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of the phrase “from the date on which the order … is communicated to him” in Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). More specifically:

• Where multiple actors (MoEF&CC, project proponent, Pollution Control Boards, local bodies) are statutorily obliged to “communicate” the grant of an EC;
• And where such communication is intended for the public at large (i.e., in rem) rather than only for the immediate applicant;
• Which date of communication should trigger the 30-day limitation period (extendable by a further 60 days) for filing an appeal under Section 16(h)?

The case arose out of a challenge by the Gram Panchayat of Village Talli (the appellant) to an EC granted for limestone mining over an area of about 193 hectares in Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat. The EC was granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 5 January 2017 to the project proponent (Respondent No. 4).

The Gram Panchayat approached the NGT with an appeal under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, but did so beyond 30 days. They sought condonation of delay on the ground that they became aware of the EC only on 14 February 2017, when a reply was received under the Right to Information Act (RTI). The NGT ultimately held the appeal to be time-barred as it was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 90 days. The Gram Panchayat then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act (appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of law).

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha (with Justice Atul S. Chandurkar concurring), dismissed the appeal and, in doing so, laid down an important legal rule:

Where multiple statutory “duty bearers” are obliged to communicate the grant of an environmental clearance to “any person aggrieved”, the limitation period under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act starts from the earliest date on which the EC is clearly and completely communicated to the public by any of those duty bearers.

The Court also clarified that:

• “Communication” in this context is in rem, not merely in personam;
• Publication of the fact of grant of EC and an indication where full details can be accessed is sufficient; publication of the entire EC document in newspapers is not required;
• Once the earliest effective communication occurs, a person aggrieved cannot rely on later communications (such as RTI replies) to extend or reset the limitation period.

---

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Core Holding

The Supreme Court holds that the expression “communicated to him” in Section 16(h) of the NGT Act:

• Must be understood in the context of environmental governance, where decisions like grant of EC affect the public at large;
• Refers to a mode of communication that is in rem (to the public), rather than limited to the direct parties to the EC;
• Is the joint responsibility of multiple duty bearers:
  • MoEF&CC / SEIAA,
  • Project Proponent,
  • Pollution Control Boards,
  • Local bodies such as Panchayats and Municipalities.

Accordingly, the Court lays down the “earliest communication” rule:

The limitation period under Section 16(h) begins from the earliest date on which the environmental clearance is clearly and completely placed in the public domain by any of the duty bearers, and not from the date when a particular aggrieved person subjectively comes to know of it.

This is derived by analogy from the general “first accrual” principle of limitation law: where multiple causes of action exist, limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues, not at every subsequent or successive violation.

2.2 Application to the Facts

On facts, the Court notes:

• The EC was signed on 5 January 2017 by MoEF&CC.
• It was scanned and uploaded on MoEF&CC’s public portal the same day (5 January 2017) and accessible to the public at large.
• The project proponent:
  • Delivered a copy of the EC to the concerned Panchayats on 9 January 2017 (acknowledged);
  • Caused advertisements to be published in two local newspapers on 11 January 2017, stating that:
    • the project had been granted EC, and
    • a copy was available with the State Pollution Control Board and on the Ministry’s website.
• The Gram Panchayat filed its appeal before the NGT on 19 April 2017.

The NGT had found, as a matter of fact, that the EC was uploaded on 5 January 2017 and was downloadable and accessible. The Supreme Court accepts this finding and holds that:

• 5 January 2017 is the date of completion of communication in law;
• Therefore, the 30-day limitation period ran from 5 January to 4 February 2017;
• The maximum condonable period of 60 days (under the proviso to Section 16) expired on or about 5 April 2017 (i.e., 90 days from 5 January);
• The appeal filed on 19 April 2017 was clearly beyond 90 days and thus barred by limitation—the NGT had no jurisdiction to condone beyond 60 additional days.

The argument that limitation ought to commence from 14 February 2017 (the RTI reply date) is explicitly rejected. The Court also rejects the contention that incomplete compliance by some duty bearers (e.g., not putting EC on notice board, not publishing the entire EC text in newspapers) postpones the commencement of limitation.

2.3 Clarification on Newspaper Publication Requirements

A further important clarification is provided regarding Clause 10 of the EIA Notification 2006:

• It is not necessary for the project proponent to publish the entire text of the EC with all conditions and safeguards in newspapers;
• It is sufficient if:
  • The advertisement clearly states that EC has been granted, and
  • Indicates where the full EC and its conditions can be accessed (e.g., MoEF&CC website, State Pollution Control Board).

Thus, publication of the factum of EC and an indication of access points is enough to treat it as effective communication. The Court endorses the approach taken by the NGT in Save Mon Region Federation and V. Sundar.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court:

• Affirms the NGT’s dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation;
• Dismisses the civil appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act; and
• Directs parties to bear their own costs.

---

3. Legal Framework

3.1 Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010

Section 16 of the NGT Act confers appellate jurisdiction on the Tribunal over a range of environmental decisions. The relevant portion for this case is Section 16(h), which allows:

“Any person aggrieved by …
(h) an order … granting environmental clearance … under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 …
… may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order … is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may … allow it to be filed … within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

Key features:

• “Any person aggrieved” – a broad phrase, reinforced by the environmental public law character recognized elsewhere in the NGT Act (e.g., Section 2 definitions of “environment”, “grievance”, “substantial question”, etc.).
• Original limitation period: 30 days from communication.
• Condonable period: additional 60 days on showing “sufficient cause”.
• Maximum total: 90 days. Beyond this, the NGT has no power to condone delay.

3.2 EIA Notification 2006 – Clause 10 (Post-EC Monitoring)

Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, the MoEF&CC issued the EIA Notification, 2006. Clause 10 is central to this case. It imposes post-clearance transparency and communication obligations, notably:

• MoEF&CC / SEIAA:
  • Must place environmental clearances in the public domain on a Government portal.
• Project Proponent (for Category A projects):
  • Must prominently advertise the EC and the environmental conditions and safeguards in at least two local newspapers;
  • Must permanently display the EC on its own website;
  • Must submit copies of the EC to heads of local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal bodies, and relevant government offices. These local authorities must display the EC for 30 days.

In addition, EC letters often contain further conditions, such as:

• State Pollution Control Boards displaying the EC at their offices;
• Project proponents forwarding copies to regional offices and regulators.

These provisions create a plurality of duty bearers responsible for “communicating” ECs to the public, which is the factual and legal matrix for the Court’s interpretation.

---

4. Precedents and Authorities Cited

4.1 Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 126

The Supreme Court invokes Khatri Hotels to draw on a general principle of limitation law. In that case, the Court held that:

If a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues.
Successive violations do not give rise to fresh causes of action in such a way as to indefinitely extend the limitation period.

Talli Gram Panchayat extends this reasoning by analogy to the environmental context:

• Here, there are multiple communicative acts (by MoEF&CC, project proponent, SPCB, local bodies);
• The Court treats these as analogous to “multiple causes of action” in the sense that each could, in theory, inform an aggrieved person;
• Consistent with limitation law, the Court holds that the clock starts when the first effective communication occurs, not upon later or successive communications.

This principle is also pointed out as having been followed in RAJEEV GUPTA v. PRASHANT GARG, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 889 (referred to in the judgment), reinforcing its contemporaneous validity.

4.2 Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India, 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1

This is a seminal NGT decision interpreting Section 16 and the EIA Notification:

• The NGT held that the date from which limitation starts is the date on which the EC order is “communicated to the public at large”;
• “Communication” means putting the EC in public domain in its complete form as per statutory requirements (website, notice boards, newspapers);
• Where different acts by different stakeholders occur on different dates, the earliest date of complete communication triggers limitation.

The Supreme Court notes that this approach has been consistently adopted by the NGT and explicitly endorses both the logic and the conclusion of Save Mon Region. Through Talli Gram Panchayat, the reasoning in Save Mon is effectively elevated from persuasive tribunal authority to binding Supreme Court precedent.

4.3 Medha Patkar v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, 2013 SCC OnLine NGT 63

In Medha Patkar, the NGT further elaborated on the communication requirement:

• It reaffirmed that “communication” means putting the EC order in the public domain and fulfilling the series of obligations under the EIA Notification and EC conditions;
• Identified three primary stakeholders:
  • Project proponent,
  • MoEF&CC,
  • Other government agencies tasked with publicizing the EC.
• Declared that if any one set of these obligations is fully performed by any one stakeholder, limitation begins;
• Cautioned that requiring all stakeholders to complete all their obligations before limitation starts would:
  • Defeat the purpose of having a limitation period;
  • Expose project proponents to prolonged uncertainty; and
  • Be contrary to the rigour and finality that limitation statutes are meant to ensure.

The Supreme Court extensively quotes from Medha Patkar (paras 12, 15, 16) and expressly adopts its logic, especially the idea that:

Once limitation starts running, it does not stop; the period prescribed must “operate meaningfully and with its rigour”.

4.4 V. Sundar v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine NGT 145

The NGT in V. Sundar Proprietor Chemicals India v. Union of India dealt with a challenge where:

• EC had been granted and advertisements issued in two newspapers;
• The advertisements did not reproduce all the conditions of the EC;
• However, they clearly stated that:
  • EC was granted; and
  • Full details were available with the TNPCB and on the SEIAA website.

The NGT held that:

• The size or exhaustiveness of the advertisement is less material than its content—i.e., whether it effectively informs the public of the grant of EC and where to access full details;
• Such publication, read with availability on official websites, constituted a complete communication for limitation purposes.

The Supreme Court in Talli Gram Panchayat explicitly endorses this reasoning (para 20–21) and adopts the principle that:

Publication of the factum of EC, along with a clear indication where the full EC and its conditions are available, suffices for “communication” under Clause 10 of the EIA Notification and Section 16(h).

---

5. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.1 “Communication” and the Nature of Environmental Decisions (in rem vs in personam)

The Court begins by emphasizing two distinct features of Section 16(h):

1. The appeal is available to “any person aggrieved”, not merely the direct applicant or directly affected landowners;
2. The subject matter—environmental clearance—is a decision that:
   • Impacts the environmental rights of the public at large, and
   • Is embedded in public law, not just private/individual interests.

From this, the Court concludes:

• Environmental disputes are not purely adversarial; they are public law concerns;
• The expression “any person aggrieved” must be given a liberal construction consistent with the NGT Act’s objective of environmental protection and access to justice;
• Consequently, the “communication” required under Section 16(h) is in rem—a communication addressed to the world at large—rather than merely in personam (served only on identified parties).

This reconceptualizes “communication”:

It is not limited to personal service (like service of summons). Once an EC is placed in the public domain in a clear and accessible manner, it is deemed to be “communicated” for the purposes of starting the limitation clock.

5.2 Plurality of Duty Bearers and the “Earliest Communication” Principle

The Court notes that the legal regime (EIA Notification, EC conditions, prior NGT jurisprudence) imposes communication obligations on several entities:

• MoEF&CC / SEIAA – upload EC on Government portal, place in public domain;
• Project Proponent – advertise in two local newspapers, upload on its website, send copies to local bodies;
• State Pollution Control Boards – display EC at offices, act as regulators;
• Local bodies (Panchayats, Municipalities) – display EC for 30 days.

Because these obligations are concurrent and may be complied with on different dates, the Court faces the question: Which date counts for limitation?

The Court answers by combining:

• The in rem character of communication; and
• The general law principle of first accrual from Khatri Hotels.

Accordingly:

When multiple authorities are legally obliged to communicate a decision, the “communication” is complete for limitation purposes when the earliest clear and complete communication is made by any one of them.

Thereafter, an aggrieved person cannot “pick and choose” a later communication that suits a more favourable (later) limitation start date. This ensures:

• Certainty – everyone knows the outer time frame when challenges must be filed;
• Finality – project proponents can rely on ECs after a certain period without fear of late challenges;
• Consistency with limitation law – once limitation begins, it runs with full rigour.

5.3 Requirement of “Clear and Complete” Communication

The Court does introduce an important qualifier: the communication that triggers limitation must be “clear and complete”. What does this mean?

• The communication (e.g., website upload, advertisement) must:
  • Clearly indicate that an EC has been granted;
  • Be accessible to the public at large (no unreasonable technical or access barriers);
  • Allow retrieval of the full EC and its conditions, even if not fully reproduced in the advertisement itself.

However, the Court avoids a hyper-technical approach. It rejects the argument that:

• Every advertisement must contain the entire EC and all conditions verbatim; or
• Failure of some duty bearers (e.g., local bodies not displaying EC) automatically prevents limitation from starting.

Instead, it accepts as sufficient:

• Public availability of the full EC document on the MoEF&CC website; and
• Newspaper advertisements that:
  • Announce the grant of EC, and
  • Point the public to where the full EC can be accessed (MoEF&CC website, PCB offices).

5.4 Rejection of RTI-Based Knowledge as the Limitation Trigger

The appellant argued that:

• They became aware of the EC only via an RTI reply dated 14 February 2017;
• Therefore, limitation should run from that date.

The NGT treated this contention as a mere “pretext” to bring the appeal within limitation, and the Supreme Court concurs. The Court’s logic:

• Once the EC was uploaded on the Ministry’s website (5 January 2017), it was deemed publicly communicated;
• Actual, subjective knowledge via RTI does not reset the clock;
• To accept RTI-based knowledge as the relevant date would:
  • Subvert the statutory framework of proactive disclosure (EIA Notification),
  • Allow indefinite delays in challenging ECs, and
  • Conflict with the rigidity of the 90-day outer limit in Section 16.

5.5 Factual Matrix and Deference to NGT’s Findings

Under Section 22 of the NGT Act, the Supreme Court’s role is to adjudicate questions of law. The NGT had already, on remand, made clear factual findings:

• The EC was uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on 5 January 2017 and there was “enough proof” on record;
• The project proponent had served the EC on the Panchayat and advertised it in newspapers by early/mid-January 2017.

The Supreme Court:

• Accepts these factual findings and does not re-open them;
• Proceeds on the basis that effective communication occurred no later than 5 January 2017 (website upload), with additional acts on 9 and 11 January.

On this factual foundation, the legal conclusion on limitation follows naturally.

5.6 Clarifying the Scope of Publication under Clause 10 of EIA Notification

A key argument by the appellant was:

• That the project proponent did not publish the entire EC text and all conditions in the newspapers; therefore, its duty to “communicate” was not fully discharged; and
• Thus limitation should not start.

The Court finds this approach “pedantic”. It holds:

• Clause 10’s requirement of “making public” does not necessitate verbatim reproduction of the entire EC in newspapers;
• It is enough if:
  • The advertisement informs that EC has been granted; and
  • Mentions where the EC and its conditions can be accessed (e.g., MoEF&CC/SEIAA website, PCB, local offices).
• This interpretation better serves the object and purpose of communication:
  • Ensuring awareness;
  • Avoiding impractical burdens and costs;
  • Aligning with the reality that detailed orders are more feasibly made available electronically or at designated offices.

This pragmatic approach is firmly aligned with Save Mon Region and V. Sundar.

---

6. Impact and Implications

6.1 On Environmental Litigants and Local Bodies

The decision has substantial practical implications for:

• Gram Panchayats, Municipal bodies, local communities;
• Environmental NGOs and activists;
• Civil society groups monitoring environmental decisions.

Key consequences:

• They must treat:
  • MoEF&CC/SEIAA portals,
  • Newspaper advertisements,
  • PCB/Local body displays
  as potential starting points of limitation for NGT appeals.
• The window to challenge an EC under Section 16(h) is effectively:
  • 30 days as a matter of right; and
  • Up to a maximum of 90 days (with condonation).
• Subjective or delayed knowledge—e.g., via RTI or word-of-mouth—cannot extend the statutory period once an earlier public-domain disclosure has been made.

In practice, this places a premium on:

• Regular monitoring of MoEF&CC and SEIAA websites;
• Prompt scrutiny of public notices and environmental advertisements in local newspapers;
• Building capacity in local institutions to track such decisions quickly and effectively.

6.2 On Project Proponents and Regulatory Certainty

From the perspective of project proponents:

• This judgment significantly enhances legal certainty:
  • Once 90 days pass from the earliest effective communication, an EC can no longer be challenged before the NGT under Section 16(h);
  • They can proceed with investments and project implementation without indefinite fear of late-stage challenges.
• However, it simultaneously underscores the importance of:
  • Strict compliance with the communication obligations under the EIA Notification and EC conditions;
  • Maintaining documentary proof of publications, website uploads, and service on local bodies, since these dates can be determinative of limitation.

6.3 On Administrative Practice and the MoEF&CC / SEIAAs

The Court’s approach puts a spotlight on the conduct of regulatory authorities:

• MoEF&CC and SEIAAs must ensure:
  • Prompt and accurate upload of ECs on government portals;
  • Ease of public access and downloadability;
  • Maintenance of reliable records of upload dates.
• Failure to upload might:
  • Delay the commencement of limitation; but
  • Could also expose authorities to administrative and legal criticism for poor transparency.

The judgment encourages:

• A culture of proactive disclosure and digital transparency; and
• Clear institutional practices, knowing that courts will treat early and effective communication as legally operative for limitation.

6.4 Balancing Access to Justice and Finality

At a conceptual level, Talli Gram Panchayat reflects a careful balancing act:

• On one hand, the Court:
  • Recognizes environmental rights as public law concerns;
  • Interprets “any person aggrieved” liberally to enable wide standing in environmental appeals;
  • Insists on a robust duty of public communication by multiple authorities.
• On the other hand, it insists that:
  • Once such communication is made, limitation runs strictly;
  • Courts and tribunals must respect the outer limit of 90 days without dilution;
  • Endless uncertainty for project proponents is inconsistent with the purpose of limitation laws.

The judgment therefore aligns environmental litigation with mainstream limitation jurisprudence, without undermining the core idea that environmental decisions affect the community as a whole.

---

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 “Limitation Period” and its Rigidity

A limitation period is the maximum time allowed by law to file a legal action or appeal. If you miss this period:

• Your case can be dismissed without the merits ever being examined;
• It is not just a flexible guideline—it is a binding legal cut-off unless the statute itself provides for extension.

Under Section 16 of the NGT Act:

• You normally have 30 days to file an appeal from the date when the order is “communicated”;
• The NGT may allow up to 60 extra days if there is “sufficient cause”; but
• 90 days total is an absolute maximum—NGT cannot condone beyond that.

7.2 “Any Person Aggrieved”

Unlike ordinary civil appeals, which are mostly confined to those directly affected, Section 16(h) allows:

“Any person aggrieved” – this includes:

• Local residents and communities;
• Gram Panchayats and local bodies;
• Environmental NGOs, activists, and public spirited individuals.

The term is interpreted broadly because environmental harm affects the community and future generations.

7.3 “In Rem” vs “In Personam” Communication

• In personam – a communication directed at specific individuals (e.g., a notice personally served on X or Y).
• In rem – a communication directed to everybody in general, usually through:
  • Public notices;
  • Website uploads;
  • Newspaper advertisements;
  • Display on official notice boards.

In Talli Gram Panchayat, the Supreme Court says ECs must be communicated in rem because:

• They affect the environment of a region and
• Potentially, many different categories of people (not all easily identifiable in advance).

So, once an EC is made accessible to the public at large (e.g., via an official website), it is treated as “communicated” to all who might be aggrieved, even if an individual discovers it later.

7.4 “First Accrual” Principle of Limitation

Think of “accrual” as the moment your right to sue or appeal comes into existence.

• If a law says you have 30 days from when your right “accrues”, you must count from the first time it happens;

In this judgment:

• There are multiple ways you might learn about the EC: website, newspaper, local notice, RTI, etc.;
• The Court says: once the EC is first lawfully put into the public domain (e.g., uploaded on MoEF&CC portal), your right to appeal accrues and the clock starts;
• Later sources (like RTI replies) do not create new accruals.

7.5 Duty Bearers in Environmental Communication

“Duty bearers” here refers to those legally obliged to share information about ECs with the public:

• MoEF&CC / SEIAA – upload EC orders on official sites;
• Project Proponents – publish in newspapers, host on their websites, send copies to local bodies;
• Pollution Control Boards – display ECs, monitor compliance;
• Local Bodies – Gram Panchayats and Municipalities display ECs so local residents can see them.

The Court’s key point:

If any one of these duty bearers properly completes its obligation in a manner that makes the EC accessible to the public, then “communication” is complete for limitation purposes.

---

8. Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Broader Significance

Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India is a landmark decision in the procedural law of environmental litigation. Its central contribution is the formulation of the “earliest public communication” rule for computing limitation under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act.

8.1 Doctrinal Significance

• It clarifies that:
  • “Communication” of environmental clearances is public-oriented (in rem), not just private (in personam);
  • The duty to communicate is shared by multiple actors, but the earliest effective communication triggers limitation;
  • The limitation structure of 30 + 60 days is strict and mandatory, in line with the general law of limitation.
• It elevates and consolidates important NGT precedents:
  • Save Mon Region Federation,
  • Medha Patkar, and
  • V. Sundar,
  giving them the imprimatur of the Supreme Court.

8.2 Practical Guidance

For different stakeholders, the decision sends clear messages:

• For environmental litigants and communities:
  • Be vigilant;
  • Track MoEF&CC/SEIAA portals and public notices;
  • Prepare to move the NGT within 30–90 days from the first public disclosure of ECs.
• For project proponents:
  • Comply meticulously with all EC communication requirements;
  • Maintain proof of advertisements, uploads, and notices;
  • After 90 days from the earliest communication, you have substantially increased legal certainty.
• For regulators (MoEF&CC, SEIAAs, PCBs, local bodies):
  • Ensure timely, accessible, and verifiable public disclosure of ECs;
  • Recognize that their conduct can determine when limitation starts, and hence when legal disputes must crystallize.

8.3 Balancing Transparency with Finality

The judgment strikes a balance between:

• Transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making; and
• Finality and legal certainty for projects subject to environmental regulation.

While some might argue that strict limitation periods can constrain access to justice—especially for marginalized communities with limited access to information—the Court mitigates this concern by:

• Emphasizing the wide standing available to “any person aggrieved”; and
• Reinforcing the strong legal obligation of authorities and project proponents to proactively communicate ECs to the public.

The underlying message is clear:

Effective environmental governance requires both openness and timeliness—decisions must be made public promptly, and challenges to such decisions must be brought within a clearly defined, reasonable time frame.

In sum, Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India will serve as a controlling authority on:

• When limitation starts for NGT appeals against ECs;
• What counts as sufficient communication under Section 16(h) and the EIA Notification 2006; and
• How environmental transparency obligations intersect with the law of limitation.

Any future litigation concerning the timeliness of appeals against ECs will have to navigate this precedent, making it a cornerstone in Indian environmental procedural law.