Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns directions issued by the Court regarding the enforcement of coastal environmental regulations.
After hearing several learned counsel, including Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Ashok Desai, Mr. D.V. Sehgal,
and counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.C. Mehta, the Court modified an earlier order dated 12-12-1994.
The matter relates to the notification dated 19-2-1991 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India,
under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. This notification prescribes
restrictions, prohibitions, and regulations within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), including the Coastal Areas Classification
and Development Regulations contained in Annexure 1.
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. M.C. Mehta, requested that the Court constitute a central authority and separate authorities
for each coastal State/Union Territory under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and submitted a list
of eminent environmental experts who could serve as members.
Additionally, Mr. Mehta placed on record an interim site visit report dated 18-10-1994, prepared by a committee constituted
by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. The committee was tasked with inspecting alleged violations
of norms and guidelines for developmental activities relating to beaches, resorts, hotels, and similar projects in the Coastal
Regulation Zone of the State of Goa. After examining the report, the Court directed that affidavits be filed by the Ministry
of Environment and Forest and the State of Goa indicating what action had been taken on the committee’s findings.
Legal Issues Presented
-
Whether and to what extent the Court should direct the respondent States to comply with all restrictions, prohibitions,
and regulations contained in the Coastal Regulation Zone notification dated 19-2-1991 and the Coastal Areas Classification
and Development Regulations in Annexure 1.
-
Whether the Court should constitute a central authority and separate authorities in each coastal State/Union Territory
under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to oversee implementation of environmental protections.
-
What follow-up action is required from the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the State of Goa in response to the
committee’s interim site visit report dated 18-10-1994 regarding violations of norms and guidelines in the Coastal
Regulation Zone of Goa.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (through Mr. M.C. Mehta)
-
The Court should, in exercise of its powers, constitute a central authority and, in addition, an authority in each
coastal State/Union Territory under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
-
A list of eminent persons in the environmental field was submitted, suggesting that they could be considered for
membership in the proposed authority or authorities.
-
An interim site visit report dated 18-10-1994, prepared by a committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forest
concerning violations of prescribed norms and guidelines for developmental activities (beaches, resorts, hotels, etc.)
in the Coastal Regulation Zone of Goa, was placed before the Court for consideration and appropriate directions.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
After hearing the various learned counsel, the Court focused on ensuring strict implementation of the existing legal framework
governing coastal areas. It noted the binding force of the notification dated 19-2-1991 issued under the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986, and determined that stronger judicial directions were necessary to secure compliance by the
respondent States.
The Court therefore modified its earlier order dated 12-12-1994 and directed that:
-
All restrictions and prohibitions regarding construction, setting up of industries, or any other purpose contained
in the 19-2-1991 notification must be meticulously followed by all concerned States.
-
Activities that have been expressly declared prohibited within the Coastal Regulation Zone shall not be undertaken
by any of the respondent States.
-
The regulations governing permissible activities under the notification must also be meticulously followed.
-
The restrictions imposed by the Coastal Areas Classification and Development Regulations in Annexure 1 to the
notification must be strictly followed by the respondent States.
On the request by Mr. Mehta to constitute a central authority and separate coastal State/Union Territory authorities under
Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Court observed that this proposal required further consideration.
It did not immediately grant or reject the request, instead indicating that a final decision would be taken after hearing
Mr. Mehta and other learned counsel for the parties further on this issue.
Regarding the committee’s interim site visit report on the Coastal Regulation Zone of Goa, the Court stated that it had
examined the report and found that the committee had done “useful work.” Recognizing the need for official action based on
the report, the Court:
-
Issued notice to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India (through its Secretary), and to the
State of Goa, directing them to file affidavits indicating the action taken in respect of the committee’s report.
-
Directed the Government of India to furnish a copy of the report to the State of Goa, if this had not already been done.
-
Fixed a time limit, directing that the affidavits by the Government of India and the State of Goa be filed within
two weeks of receipt of the Court’s order.
The reasoning is thus grounded in strengthening the enforcement of existing environmental regulations and ensuring that
governmental authorities respond concretely to identified violations.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
-
The Court modified its earlier order dated 12-12-1994 and directed that all restrictions, prohibitions,
and regulations contained in the Coastal Regulation Zone notification dated 19-2-1991 and in the Coastal Areas
Classification and Development Regulations (Annexure 1) shall be meticulously and strictly followed
by all respondent States. Prohibited activities in the CRZ are not to be undertaken by any respondent State.
-
The Court did not yet decide on the constitution of a central authority and State/Union Territory
authorities under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, stating that the matter requires further
consideration and would be decided after additional hearings.
-
The Court issued notice to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, and to the
State of Goa, directing them to file affidavits within two weeks of receipt of the order, indicating the action taken
on the committee’s interim site visit report dated 18-10-1994 concerning Coastal Regulation Zone violations in Goa.
The Government of India was also directed to provide a copy of the report to the State of Goa, if not already supplied.
Implications:
The immediate consequence is that all respondent States are under explicit judicial direction to strictly comply with the
19-2-1991 Coastal Regulation Zone notification and the associated Coastal Areas Classification and Development Regulations.
This heightens the enforcement of existing environmental norms governing coastal development and restricts prohibited
activities. For the State of Goa and the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the order compels a formal response and
disclosure of actions taken in light of the committee’s findings on violations in Goa.
The opinion also signals the possibility of future institutional measures, such as the creation of specialized authorities
under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, though no final decision on that issue is made in this order.
The order operates primarily as a directive and enforcement mechanism in this specific context and does not state that it
establishes any new legal precedent beyond these parties and circumstances.
Show full summary ...