Supreme Court Quashes Exemption for Ordinary Earth Extraction in Linear Projects: Noble M. Paikada vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 241 (21 March 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 241

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can the government exempt the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, like roads and pipelines, from mandatory environmental clearances? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this critical question in a case concerning environmental protection and sustainable development. The core issue revolved around a notification that exempted such projects from prior environmental clearance, raising concerns about potential environmental damage. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on 28th March 2020. This notification amended previous environmental clearance (EC) notifications, specifically regarding exemptions for certain projects. The appellant, Noble M. Paikada, contested the exemption granted for the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, arguing that it violated environmental laws and the principle of sustainable development. The respondent was the Union of India.

The main point of contention was the insertion of item 6 in Appendix-IX of the notification, which exempted the “extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc.” from the requirement of prior environmental clearance. The appellant argued that this exemption was arbitrary, lacked proper safeguards, and was contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in previous cases.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially challenged the notification before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT, in its judgment dated 28th October 2020, directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to revisit the impugned notification, observing that the blanket exemption for extraction of ordinary earth needed to be balanced with appropriate safeguards. The NGT found that the exemption lacked necessary safeguards regarding the process of excavation and the quantum of earth extracted. The NGT also noted that safeguards were required for the disposal of dredged material under item 7 of the notification. The NGT directed the MoEF&CC to revisit the notification within three months to incorporate these safeguards. The appellant’s review petition was subsequently dismissed by the NGT on 24th December 2020, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the following legal provisions:

• ✓ The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act): Section 3 of the EP Act empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. Specifically, sub-section (2)(v) allows the government to restrict areas where certain industries or processes can be carried out, or to impose safeguards. The court noted that the object of the EP Act is to provide protection to the environment and improve the environment.

“3. Power of Central Government to take measures to protect and improve environment. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government, shall have the power to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing controlling and abating environmental pollution.”

• ✓ The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (EP Rules): Rule 5 of the EP Rules provides the procedure for restricting the location of industries and carrying out processes. Sub-rule (3) mandates that the Central Government must publish a notice of its intention to impose restrictions and consider objections, while sub-rule (4) allows dispensing with this requirement in the public interest.

“5. Prohibition and Restriction on the location of industries and the carrying on processes and operations in different areas. (1) The Central government may take into consideration the following factors while prohibiting or restricting the location of industries and carrying on of processes and operations in different areas – (i) Standards for quality of environment in its various aspects laid down for an area.”

• ✓ The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act): Section 8B of the MMDR Act, inserted on 13th March 2020 and amended on 28th March 2021, deals with the transfer of statutory clearances for mining leases.

The court observed that the EP Act was enacted to address the decline in environmental quality due to increasing pollution and the growing risk of environmental accidents. The rules under the EP Act are meant to give effect to the powers of the Central Government to put restrictions on areas where industries or processes can be carried out, or to impose safeguards.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• ✓ The appellant argued that the exemption under item 6 of the impugned notification, allowing extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects without prior EC, violated the EP Act and the principle of sustainable development.
• ✓ It was contended that such a blanket exemption would lead to indiscriminate extraction of earth, causing significant environmental damage.
• ✓ The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629], which mandated that leases of minor minerals, including those for areas less than 5 hectares, should be granted only after obtaining an EC.
• ✓ The appellant submitted that the impugned notification was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by not providing any safeguards or specifying the quantum of earth that could be extracted.
• ✓ It was also argued that the Central Government did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules, which requires inviting objections to draft notifications.
• ✓ The appellant contended that the amended item 6, which made the exemption subject to compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), was still arbitrary because it did not specify the authority to issue the SOP or how it would be enforced.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• ✓ The respondent, Union of India, argued that the amendment to the first EC notification was necessary due to the insertion of Section 8B in the MMDR Act.
• ✓ It was submitted that the provisions of the first EC notification must align with the amended provisions of the MMDR Act.
• ✓ The respondent stated that the matter was placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), and the issue was deliberated in a meeting convened on 30th June 2022.
• ✓ The respondent contended that the amended impugned notification was not arbitrary as the exemption was subject to compliance with SOPs and safeguards issued from time to time.
• ✓ It was also argued that the grant of exemption from the first EC notification was a matter of policy for the Central Government and should not be interfered with.

The core of the appellant’s argument was that the exemption was too broad, lacking in safeguards, and did not adhere to the principles of environmental protection. The respondent, on the other hand, justified the exemption as necessary to align with amendments to the MMDR Act and argued that the introduction of SOPs provided sufficient safeguards.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the exemption granted under item 6 of the impugned notification for extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects was valid.
2. Whether the Central Government had illegally invoked its power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the EP Rules to dispense with the requirement of public notice.
3. Whether item 6 of the impugned notification was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Whether the Central Government complied with the directions issued by the NGT to revisit the impugned notification and incorporate necessary safeguards.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] – Supreme Court of India: This case mandated that leases of minor minerals, including those for areas less than 5 hectares, should be granted only after obtaining an EC. The court relied on this case to highlight the need for environmental safeguards even for smaller projects.
• ✓ Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [(2019) 15 SCC 401] – Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to reinforce the importance of environmental protection and the need for proper regulatory mechanisms.
• ✓ Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This section empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. The court emphasized that the notification must align with the objectives of this Act.
• ✓ Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: This rule outlines the procedure for restricting the location of industries and carrying out processes. The court noted that the Central Government did not follow the prescribed procedure in issuing the impugned notification.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, quashing item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX in both the impugned notification dated 28th March 2020 and the amended impugned notification dated 30th August 2023.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Court followed the principles laid down in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629]* to emphasize the need for environmental clearance for minor minerals, highlighting that the exemption was inconsistent with this precedent.
• ✓ The Court referred to Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [(2019) 15 SCC 401]* to reinforce the importance of environmental protection and the need for proper regulatory mechanisms.
• ✓ The Court emphasized that the notification must align with the objectives of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and found that the exemption was contrary to the Act’s purpose.
• ✓ The Court noted that the Central Government did not follow the mandated procedure under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, in issuing the impugned notification.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• ✓ Violation of Procedure: The court found that the Central Government had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules by not inviting public objections before issuing the impugned notification. The court emphasized that citizens are major stakeholders in environmental matters and their participation cannot be prevented by casually exercising the power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5.
• ✓ Arbitrariness of Exemption: The court held that item 6 of the notification was arbitrary because it provided a blanket exemption without specifying the quantum of earth that could be extracted, the area of extraction, or providing a clear definition of “linear projects.” This lack of specificity and safeguards made the exemption unguided and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
• ✓ Non-Compliance with NGT Directions: The court noted that the Central Government had not complied with the directions issued by the NGT to revisit the impugned notification and incorporate necessary safeguards. The court found that the SOPs introduced by the Central Government were inadequate and did not address the issues raised by the NGT.
• ✓ Environmental Protection: The court emphasized that the object of the EP Act is to protect and improve the environment. The court found that the blanket exemption granted by item 6 completely defeated the very purpose of the EP Act.

Fact:Law Ratio:

This indicates that the court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations and procedural lapses than the specific factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The judgment clarifies that exemptions from environmental clearances must be specific and must include appropriate safeguards to prevent environmental damage.
• ✓ The Central Government cannot arbitrarily dispense with the requirement of public notice under Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules. The reasons for doing so must be clearly stated and justified.
• ✓ The judgment highlights the importance of citizen participation in environmental matters and the need for transparency in decision-making processes.
• ✓ The judgment serves as a reminder that the principles of sustainable development must be balanced with developmental needs, and blanket exemptions cannot be granted without proper regulatory mechanisms.
• ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of following judicial precedents, such as the Deepak Kumar case, in environmental matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than quashing item 6 of the impugned notifications. However, the court noted that the respondents must implement the directions issued by the NGT regarding item 7 of the impugned notification.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment discusses the amendments made to the first EC notification by the impugned notification, specifically the substitution of Appendix-IX. The court analyzed the introduction of item 6, which exempted the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, and found it to be arbitrary and illegal. The court also considered the amended item 6, which made the exemption subject to SOPs, and found that it still suffered from the same vices.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that exemptions from environmental clearances must be specific, include appropriate safeguards, and must not be granted arbitrarily. The judgment reinforces the importance of following due procedure and ensuring citizen participation in environmental matters. The court’s decision also clarifies that the government cannot grant blanket exemptions that undermine the very purpose of the EP Act. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing legal framework and emphasizes the need for its strict adherence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Noble M. Paikada vs. Union of India is a significant ruling in environmental law, emphasizing the need for stringent environmental safeguards and adherence to due process. The court quashed the exemption for the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, highlighting the importance of transparency, citizen participation, and sustainable development. The judgment underscores that exemptions from environmental clearances must be specific, must include appropriate safeguards, and must not be granted arbitrarily, thereby reinforcing the principles of environmental protection.

Category

Parent Category: Environmental Law

Child Categories:

• Environmental Clearances
• Sustainable Development
• Article 14, Constitution of India
• Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
• Rule 5, Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Noble M. Paikada vs. Union of India case?

A: The main issue was the validity of an exemption granted to the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects from the requirement of prior environmental clearance.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the exemption, holding that it was arbitrary, lacked proper safeguards, and violated the principles of environmental protection.

Q: What is a “linear project” as mentioned in the judgment?

A: The judgment notes that the term “linear project” was not defined in the notification and that this lack of definition contributed to the arbitrariness of the exemption. Examples of linear projects include roads and pipelines.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court find the exemption to be arbitrary?

A: The court found the exemption to be arbitrary because it did not specify the quantum of earth that could be extracted, the area of extraction, or provide a clear definition of “linear projects.”

Q: What is the significance of the Deepak Kumar case mentioned in the judgment?

A: The Deepak Kumar case mandated that leases of minor minerals, including those for areas less than 5 hectares, should be granted only after obtaining an environmental clearance. The court relied on this case to highlight the need for environmental safeguards even for smaller projects.

Q: What is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986?

A: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is an act of the Parliament of India. In the wake of the Bhopal disaster, the act was enacted in 1986 under Article 253 of the Constitution. The Act implements the decisions of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972.

Q: What are the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986?

A: The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 were framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 and section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Q: What does the judgment mean for future projects?

A: The judgment means that future projects cannot be granted blanket exemptions from environmental clearances. Any exemptions must be specific, include necessary safeguards, and follow due procedures.

Q: What is the role of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in this case?

A: The NGT initially heard the case and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to revisit the impugned notification and incorporate necessary safeguards. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Government had not complied with these directions.