Introduction

The case of Gajubha Jadeja Jesar (S) v. Union Of India And Others (S). (2022 INSC 810) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on August 10, 2022, addresses a critical issue concerning the environmental clearance requirements for cold rolled coil manufacturing units in the metallurgical industry. The primary parties involved are the appellant, Gajubha Jadeja Jesar, and the Union of India, alongside other respondents including the Gujarat State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB).

The crux of the dispute revolves around whether the Project Proponent, having established a cold rolling unit with Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the GSPCB, can be granted a grace period to obtain prior Environmental Clearance (EC) as mandated by the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of September 14, 2006. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had initially stayed the project activities pending EC, leading to the current legal challenge.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT's order granting a one-year grace period for the Project Proponent to obtain EC, despite the initial ambiguity in the EIA Notification regarding the applicability of EC for non-toxic secondary metallurgical processing industries like cold rolling units. The Court acknowledged the substantial economic contributions of the Project Proponent and the widespread ambiguity affecting over 1,689 similar units nationwide. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 2020 and allowed Civil Appeal No. 3576 of 2020, effectively quashing the closure notice issued by the GSPCB.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that have shaped environmental jurisprudence in India:

• Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499: Clarified that illegal activities causing environmental harm within a licensed area are subject to regulation.
• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union Of India (2019) 15 SCC 401: Emphasized the balance between development and environmental protection, highlighting sustainable development principles embedded in the EIA Notification.
• Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) 17 SCC 157: Discussed the limitations of granting ex-post facto EC and the implications of closing economically significant units due to procedural irregularities.
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2021 SCC OnLine SC 897): Examined the scope and jurisdiction of the NGT, particularly its sui generis role in environmental governance.
• Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO (2022 SCC OnLine SC 362): Addressed the procedural and substantive aspects of EC, reinforcing the Court's stance on balancing economic and environmental considerations.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed these precedents to determine the appropriate balance between stringent environmental regulations and the pragmatic need to sustain economic activities, especially in sectors contributing significantly to the national economy.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning was multifaceted:

• Ambiguity in EIA Notification: The Court recognized that the EIA Notification of 2006 contained ambiguities regarding the requirement of EC for non-toxic secondary metallurgical processing industries. This ambiguity had led to widespread non-compliance based on misinterpretation by both industry stakeholders and regulatory bodies.
• Economic and Social Impact: Considering the substantial investment (Rs. 1,100 crores), turnover (Rs. 743 crores), employment (approximately 8,000 employees in similar units), and contributions to foreign exchange, the Court underscored the potential adverse economic and social consequences of immediate closure without a grace period.
• Recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC): The EAC had recommended a one-year grace period to allow existing units to transition from CTE/CTO to EC compliance. The Court found merit in this pragmatic approach, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting regulatory efficiency.
• PMOI on NGT’s Jurisdiction: While acknowledging the expansive role of the NGT as per Hanuman Laxman Aroskar, the Court delineated the boundaries of its jurisdiction, prioritizing collective environmental strategies over unilateral operational bans that could disrupt economic activities.

The Court effectively balanced environmental imperatives with economic realities, emphasizing the need for clear regulatory frameworks and transitional provisions to address systemic ambiguities.

Impact

This landmark judgment has several far-reaching implications:

• Clarification of EIA Notification: The ruling highlighted the necessity for precise regulatory language in the EIA Notification, prompting the Central Government to amend the notification to eliminate ambiguities.
• Grace Period for Compliance: Establishing a precedent for granting transitional periods to industries operating under outdated or ambiguous regulations, thus preventing economic disruptions while ensuring future compliance.
• NGT’s Expansive Role: Reinforcing the NGT's authority to implement pragmatic solutions that balance environmental protection with economic sustainability.
• Policy Reforms: Encouraging policymakers to engage in proactive regulatory reforms to address industry-wide compliance challenges, ensuring clarity and uniformity in environmental governance.
• Judicial Pragmatism: Demonstrating the Court’s willingness to adopt a balanced approach, considering both environmental integrity and socio-economic factors.

The decision serves as a guiding framework for future cases involving environmental clearances, particularly in sectors where regulatory ambiguities exist, ensuring that economic activities are not unduly hampered while maintaining environmental safeguards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Gajubha Jadeja Jesar v. Union Of India judgment marks a pivotal development in the landscape of environmental regulation in India. By acknowledging the ambiguities in existing regulations and the substantial economic contributions of the metallurgical industry, the Supreme Court has demonstrated judicial prudence in balancing environmental imperatives with economic sustainability. The mandating amendment of the EIA Notification and the provision of a grace period for compliance underscore a progressive approach, aiming to harmonize development with environmental stewardship.

This judgment not only offers immediate relief to the affected industries but also sets a precedent for how similar cases will be adjudicated in the future, emphasizing clarity in regulatory frameworks and the importance of transitional measures in ensuring seamless compliance. As India continues to industrialize, such judicious rulings will be crucial in fostering an environment where economic growth and environmental protection coexist harmoniously.