Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's decision in NOBLE M PAIKADA v. UNION OF INDIA (2024 INSC 241) marks a significant precedent in environmental jurisprudence. The case revolves around the challenge to the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) judgment and subsequent orders concerning exemptions from obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) for the extraction of ordinary earth in linear projects such as roads and pipelines. The appellant, Noble M. Paikada, contested the modifications made to existing EC notifications, asserting that the exemptions were arbitrary and violated constitutional provisions.

The parties involved include Noble M. Paikada as the appellant and the Union of India as the respondent. Central to the dispute are the procedures and safeguards associated with granting EC exemptions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act) and the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notifications.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which amended previous EC notifications by introducing exemptions for the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects. The NGT had previously struck down portions of these notifications, particularly item 6, citing the need for balanced exemptions incorporating sustainable development principles.

The Court found that the Ministry had not adhered to the procedural requirements laid down under Rule 5 of the EP Rules, specifically failing to provide prior public notice and consider objections. Furthermore, the exemptions were deemed arbitrary as they lacked clear guidelines on the quantum and processes for extraction, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX in the impugned notification dated March 28, 2020, and the amended impugned notification dated August 30, 2023.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The appellant referenced significant Supreme Court judgments to bolster their case:

• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union Of India: Emphasized the mandatory requirement of EC for minor minerals extraction.
• Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana: Mandated that leases of minor minerals and renewals must obtain EC, reinforcing the need for regulatory oversight in environmental matters.

These precedents underscored the Court's stance on preventing arbitrary environmental exemptions and ensuring that environmental protections are not undermined by regulatory relaxations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on several key points:

• Procedural Compliance: The Ministry failed to follow the mandatory public notice and objection process under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the EP Rules when issuing the impugned notifications.
• Arbitrariness: The exemptions granted were broad and lacked specific guidelines regarding the quantity of earth to be extracted, the definition of linear projects, and the processes involved. This lack of specificity rendered the exemptions arbitrary, violating Article 14's guarantee of equality before the law.
• Constitutional Violations: By not incorporating necessary safeguards and failing to adhere to procedural norms, the exemptions undermined the EP Act's objective of environmental protection, thus conflicting with constitutional provisions.
• NGT's Directions: The Ministry did not act upon the NGT's directives to revise the exemptions with appropriate safeguards, demonstrating non-compliance with judicial mandates.

The Court emphasized that environmental clearances should not be exempted in a manner that compromises ecological integrity and sustainable development. Any exemption must be meticulously crafted with clear parameters and robust safeguards to prevent environmental degradation.

Impact

This judgment sets a vital precedent in environmental law by reinforcing the necessity of procedural adherence and the avoidance of arbitrary regulatory decisions. The key impacts include:

• Strengthening Environmental Safeguards: Ensures that any exemptions from EC are not blanket but are subject to stringent criteria and oversight.
• Judicial Oversight: Empowers courts to strictly review governmental exemptions and mandates adherence to both procedural and substantive environmental laws.
• Policy Formulation: Influences future policy amendments by highlighting the importance of transparent and participatory processes in environmental regulation.
• Public Participation: Reinforces the role of public objections and participation in environmental decision-making processes.

Future cases involving environmental clearances and exemptions will likely reference this judgment to ensure compliance with procedural norms and constitutional mandates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Environmental Clearance (EC)

EC is a mandatory approval required for certain projects or activities that have the potential to impact the environment. It ensures that projects adhere to environmental standards and mitigate adverse effects.

Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

Rule 5 outlines the procedures for prohibiting or restricting industries and operations in specific areas to protect the environment. It includes provisions for public notice, objections, and adherence to environmental safeguards.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It prohibits arbitrary and discriminatory actions by the state.

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

The NGT is a specialized judicial body established to handle environmental disputes and ensure the effective and expeditious disposal of cases related to environmental protection and conservation.

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5

This sub-rule allows the Central Government to bypass the mandatory public notice procedure if it deems it to be in the public interest, such as during emergencies.