Supreme Court Halts Construction: Environmental Concerns Trump Development Near Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary (5 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 5 November 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1151
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., B.R. Gavai, J. (authored by Arun Mishra, J.)
Can a housing project be allowed to proceed when it is located a mere 123 meters from a wildlife sanctuary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection and the need for a balanced approach to development. This judgment highlights the conflict between development and ecological preservation, particularly in areas near protected wildlife zones. The bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, delivered a unanimous verdict, setting aside permissions for a housing project due to its proximity to the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary.

Case Background

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. (Tata HDCL) proposed a housing project named “CAMELOT” in the village of Kansal, Punjab. The project, spanning 52.66 acres, included group housing, parking, and was designed to accommodate approximately 9,788 people. The proposed maximum height of the buildings was 92.65 meters. This project required environmental clearance under the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) Notification dated 14.09.2006.

After initial approvals and a “gold grading” from the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), a site inspection revealed that the project was only 123 meters from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, according to the Survey of India Map. This sparked a series of legal challenges and raised concerns about the project’s environmental impact.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the project for violating the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The High Court directed Tata HDCL to obtain necessary clearances. Subsequently, Sarin Memorial Legal Foundation filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the environmental clearance granted by SEIAA, Punjab. The Supreme Court transferred the matter to the High Court of Delhi for a decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: These sections empower the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. The Notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued under these provisions. The Supreme Court noted that this notification has a statutory force.
• Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1996: This rule specifies the procedures for environmental clearances.
• Section 26-A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: This section allows for the declaration of an area as a wildlife sanctuary.

The court also considered the implications of the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect and improve the environment, and Article 51A(g), which imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the court can be categorized as follows:

Arguments by Tata HDCL

• Tata HDCL argued that the project site does not contribute to the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, as it does not obstruct the natural flow of water.
• They claimed that they had obtained the necessary permissions under Section 6(2) of the Periphery Control Act, 1952, and environmental clearance under the E.P. Act, entitling them to proceed with construction.
• They contended that the distance of the project from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary was 123 meters, as per the Office Memorandum dated 02.12.2009 of MoEF, and thus, they were entitled to clearance.

Arguments by the Union Territory of Chandigarh

• The Union Territory of Chandigarh argued that the project site falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, and as per the Survey of India Map, no construction should be allowed.
• They highlighted that the project was adjacent to the wildlife sanctuary, with a distance of only 123 meters, violating the Periphery Control Act.
• They contended that the environmental clearance was not granted in terms of the MoEF Notification dated 14.09.2006.
• They also pointed out that the project was within the eco-sensitive zone and required prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife.

Arguments by the State of Punjab

• The State of Punjab supported Tata HDCL’s case, arguing that the edict of Chandigarh was not applicable to the area.
• They claimed the Survey of India Map regarding the catchment area of Sukhna Lake was not conclusive.
• They argued that SEIAA rightly considered the application, given the 123-meter distance from the sanctuary as per MoEF guidelines.
• They acknowledged that Tata HDCL had to obtain clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife before starting any work.

Submissions Table

Innovativeness of the argument

The Union Territory of Chandigarh’s argument was particularly innovative in its reliance on the Survey of India Map to establish the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, and in highlighting the project’s location within the eco-sensitive zone, thereby requiring additional clearances.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether housing activities are permissible within a short distance of 123 meters from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary.
2. Whether the project could be allowed to proceed given its proximity to the sanctuary.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Goa Foundation vs. Union of India [2011] 15 SCC 791 to emphasize the importance of protecting wildlife sanctuaries and eco-sensitive zones, highlighting the need for States to respond to environmental concerns.
• The Court used Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India [1997] 3 SCC 549 to underscore the public trust doctrine, emphasizing that the government must protect natural resources for the public.
• The Court cited M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others [1997] 1 SCC 388 to reinforce the concept of the public trust doctrine, stating that certain resources should not be subject to private ownership.
• The Court referred to Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647 to highlight the need for sustainable development, balancing ecology and development.
• The Court used Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs. State of A.P. and others [2006] 3 SCC 549 to reiterate the principle of sustainable development and the importance of protecting the environment.
• The Court cited M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [2000] 6 SCC 213 to apply the polluter pays principle, emphasizing that those who damage the environment must pay for the damage.
• The Court referred to M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes matter) vs. Union of India and others [1997] 3 SCC 715 to stress the importance of preserving ecosystems and taking preventive measures.
• The Court used Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others [1996] 5 SCC 281 to emphasize the need for effective enforcement of environmental laws.
• The Court also relied on Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to underscore the constitutional duty to protect the environment and wildlife.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Proximity to the Wildlife Sanctuary: The fact that the project was only 123 meters from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary was a major concern. The Court emphasized that such close proximity posed a significant threat to the sanctuary’s ecosystem.
• Catchment Area of Sukhna Lake: The project’s location within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake was another critical factor. The Court noted that construction in this area could disrupt the natural drainage patterns and affect the water quality of the lake.
• Failure to Adhere to Environmental Norms: The Court found that the project lacked proper environmental clearances and violated the MoEF Notification dated 14.09.2006.
• Public Trust Doctrine: The Court emphasized the State’s duty to act as a trustee of natural resources, protecting them for the benefit of the public rather than for private or commercial interests.
• Sustainable Development: The Court stressed the importance of balancing development with environmental protection, noting that development should not come at the cost of ecological degradation.
• Constitutional Duties: The Court highlighted the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the need to protect the environment and wildlife. The Court concluded that the project could not proceed due to its proximity to the sanctuary and the lack of proper environmental clearances.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents. The Court’s reasoning was clear, accessible, and grounded in the principles of environmental protection and sustainable development.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The most potent threat faced by the earth and human civilization as a whole which is confronted with, today, is environmental degradation and wildlife degeneration.”

“The Directive Principles of State Policy provide that protection and improvement of environment, safeguarding forest and wildlife have been duly enjoined upon the Government.”

“The entire exercise of obtaining clearance relating to the project is quashed.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, and the judgment was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment include:

• Environmental Protection is Paramount: The Supreme Court emphasized that environmental protection must be given priority over development, particularly in eco-sensitive zones.
• Importance of Eco-Sensitive Zones: The judgment highlights the significance of maintaining buffer zones around wildlife sanctuaries and the need for strict adherence to environmental norms.
• Public Trust Doctrine: The State is a trustee of natural resources and must protect them for the benefit of the public, not for private gain.
• Sustainable Development: Development must be balanced with environmental protection, ensuring that the needs of the present do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Enforcement of Environmental Laws: The judgment underscores the need for strict enforcement of environmental laws and regulations.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the entire exercise of obtaining clearance relating to the project.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that projects located within a short distance of wildlife sanctuaries and within the catchment area of lakes, without proper environmental clearances, cannot be allowed. This judgment reinforces the principles of environmental protection, the public trust doctrine, and sustainable development, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar environmental concerns. The Court has reiterated the importance of adhering to environmental laws and regulations and has emphasized the State’s duty to protect natural resources for the benefit of the public.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a significant reminder of the importance of environmental protection and the need for a balanced approach to development. The Court’s firm stance against projects that violate environmental norms and threaten wildlife sanctuaries underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the environment for future generations. The judgment sets a strong precedent for similar cases and emphasizes the State’s duty to act as a trustee of natural resources.