Supreme Court Lifts Embargo on Mopa Airport Environmental Clearance: Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India (2020) INSC 4

Date of the Judgment: January 16, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 4

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J

Can a previously suspended environmental clearance for a major infrastructure project be reinstated? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of the Mopa Airport in Goa. The court reviewed the Expert Appraisal Committee’s (EAC) report and lifted the suspension, imposing additional environmental safeguards. This case highlights the balance between development and environmental protection.

Case Background

The case revolves around the construction of a greenfield airport at Mopa, Goa. The project received an Environmental Clearance (EC) on October 28, 2015. However, this EC was challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which upheld the EC with certain conditions. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated March 29, 2019, found the process leading to the EC flawed and suspended it. The Court directed the EAC to revisit its recommendations, considering specific environmental concerns. The project proponent, the State of Goa, and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) were given liberty to file the EAC report before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s concerns stemmed from the need to preserve the biodiversity of the Western Ghats, a region of significant ecological importance. The court noted the failure of the project proponent to disclose complete information about reserved forests within a 15 km radius of the proposed airport. Key concerns included the preservation of forests, the existence of ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs), the impact on natural water channels, and socio-economic and environmental issues raised during public consultations.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The project’s Environmental Clearance (EC) was initially challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT upheld the EC but imposed certain conditions. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India, found the EC process flawed due to incomplete disclosure of information by the project proponent. The Supreme Court suspended the EC and directed the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to revisit its recommendations. The EAC was tasked with addressing specific concerns highlighted by the court, including the impact on the Western Ghats, reserved forests, and ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs). Following the EAC’s review, the matter was brought back to the Supreme Court for final orders.

Legal Framework

The judgment is framed within the context of environmental law and the need to balance development with ecological preservation. The key legal provisions and regulations include:

• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This act provides the framework for environmental protection in India.
• The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006: This notification mandates the process for obtaining environmental clearances for projects with potential environmental impacts.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This act regulates air pollution.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This act regulates water pollution.
• The Indian Forest Act, 1927: This act governs the management and protection of forests.
• The Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (now superseded by Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016): These rules regulate the management of solid waste.
• The Airport Guidance Manual, 2010: This manual provides guidelines for environmental assessments of airport projects.

The Supreme Court’s directions were issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Senior Counsel):

• EAC’s Domain Expertise: The EAC lacked expertise in ornithology and terrestrial ecosystems. The committee was primarily composed of retired officials and did not consult subject specialists.
• Conflict of Interest: The EIA consultant, Engineers India Limited (EIL), also served as an independent engineer for the project, creating a conflict of interest.
• Forests: The project proponent failed to collect primary data on the 35 proposed reserved forests near the site. The EAC did not study the impact of the project on these forests.
• Western Ghats: The EAC did not conduct a study on the impact of the project on the Western Ghats, a critical biodiversity hotspot.
• Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs): The EAC did not assess the specific vulnerabilities of the ESAs near the project site.
• Flora and Fauna: The primary and secondary data collection on flora and fauna was inadequate. The project proponent excluded important species and did not conduct an avi-faunal study.
• Mitigation Measures: The proposed mitigation measures were inadequate and did not address the specific conditions of the Mopa airport project.

Respondents’ Arguments (Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India, and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Additional Solicitor General):

• Project Necessity: The Mopa airport was necessary due to the capacity constraints of the existing Dabolim airport.
• EAC’s Expertise: The EAC comprised experts with scientific backgrounds and domain knowledge on environmental matters.
• No Conflict of Interest: EIL was appointed as an independent engineer after the EC was granted, following a competitive tendering process.
• Western Ghats and ESAs: The project site was not located within an ESA, and the impact on ESAs in Maharashtra was minimal.
• Forests: The project proponent disclosed details of forests, and the EAC considered the compensatory afforestation program.
• Flora and Fauna: The project proponent presented data from the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), and the EAC imposed mitigation measures to protect biodiversity.
• Mitigation Measures: The EAC proposed additional environmental safeguards and conditions to address the concerns raised.
• Airport Guidance Manual Compliance: The project proponent followed the guidelines in the Airport Guidance Manual.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) adequately addressed the concerns highlighted by the Supreme Court in its earlier judgment regarding the environmental impact of the Mopa airport project.
2. Whether the EAC’s review process was flawed due to a lack of domain expertise or a conflict of interest.
3. Whether the project proponent provided complete and accurate information regarding the environmental impact of the project, particularly concerning forests, ecologically sensitive areas, and the Western Ghats.
4. Whether the mitigation measures proposed by the EAC were sufficient to protect the environment and address the concerns raised during public consultations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the EAC’s report and the arguments presented, lifted the suspension on the Environmental Clearance (EC) for the Mopa airport project. The court held that the EAC had adequately addressed the concerns highlighted in its previous judgment and imposed additional environmental safeguards and conditions. The court also accepted the concessionaire’s commitment to a Zero Carbon Programme.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India (2019) SCCOnline SC 441:* The Court relied on its previous judgment to emphasize the need for a thorough review process and to ensure that the concerns raised were adequately addressed.
• Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338:* The Court applied the principles of judicial review laid down in this case, emphasizing that the court should review the decision-making process to ensure fairness and compliance with sustainable development principles.
• Kasturirangan Committee Report (2013):* The Court recognized the importance of this report in identifying ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats and its recommendations for sustainable development.
• Airport Guidance Manual (2010):* The Court considered the guidelines in this manual to assess whether the project proponent had followed the required procedures for environmental assessments.
• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:* The Court recognized this statute as the framework for environmental protection in India.
• The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006:* The Court acknowledged this notification as the basis for requiring environmental clearances for projects with potential environmental impacts.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:* The Court acknowledged this act as the legal basis for regulating air pollution.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:* The Court acknowledged this act as the legal basis for regulating water pollution.
• The Indian Forest Act, 1927:* The Court recognized this act as governing the management and protection of forests.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The EAC had revisited its recommendations and imposed additional conditions to protect the environment.
• The project proponent had provided additional information to address the deficiencies in the initial disclosure.
• The EAC had considered the concerns raised during public consultations and proposed mitigation measures.
• The court was not inclined to substitute its own opinion for that of the expert body (EAC).
• The court emphasized the need to balance development with environmental protection.

The Court did not find any dissenting opinions.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The EAC has accounted for the relevant factors outlined by this Court in its previous judgment in the assessment leading to the grant of the EC.”

“The evaluation of merits is a matter which primarily rests with an expert authority. The court can certainly supervise procedural compliance and ensure that all necessary inputs which are required to be factored into the decision -making process have been duly borne in mind.”

“Having assessed the process which took place following the judgment of this Court and the outcome, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that it fails to meet the standards which the court applies in the course of judicial review in environmental matters.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The EAC’s thorough review and imposition of additional environmental safeguards.
• The project proponent’s efforts to address the deficiencies in the initial disclosure.
• The need to balance development with environmental protection.
• The court’s deference to the expert opinion of the EAC.
• The assurance of the concessionaire to implement a Zero Carbon Programme.

Key Takeaways

• Environmental clearances can be reinstated if deficiencies are addressed and additional safeguards are implemented.
• Expert bodies like the EAC play a crucial role in assessing the environmental impact of projects.
• Project proponents must provide complete and accurate information during the EIA process.
• The Supreme Court emphasizes the need to balance development with environmental protection.
• Oversight by specialized bodies like NEERI can ensure compliance with environmental conditions.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The minutes of the EAC meeting dated April 23, 2019, were taken on record.
• The additional conditions imposed by the EAC, along with the original conditions of the EC dated October 28, 2015, and the directions issued by the NGT, were to be cumulatively observed.
• The concessionaire was directed to adopt a Zero Carbon Programme for the airport.
• The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) was appointed to oversee compliance with the directions issued by the court.
• The suspension on the EC was lifted.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an Environmental Clearance (EC) can be reinstated if the deficiencies in the initial process are addressed and additional safeguards are implemented. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of expert bodies like the EAC in assessing environmental impacts and the need for project proponents to provide complete and accurate information. The court also emphasized the necessity of balancing development with environmental protection and the role of judicial review in ensuring procedural compliance and adherence to sustainable development principles. This case did not change any previous positions of law but rather reinforced existing principles and procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India lifted the suspension on the Environmental Clearance for the Mopa airport project. The court found that the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) had adequately addressed the concerns raised in its previous judgment and imposed additional environmental safeguards. The court also directed the project proponent to adopt a Zero Carbon Programme and appointed NEERI to oversee compliance. This case highlights the importance of balancing development with environmental protection and the role of expert bodies in assessing environmental impacts.