LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the jurisdiction to direct amendments to a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) within an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and whether the NGT correctly applied the precautionary principle in upholding the Expert Committee report.
CASE TYPE: Environmental Law
Case Name: Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 12 January 2022
Date of the Judgment: 12 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 472
Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J
Can a developmental plan be struck down if it does not adhere to environmental regulations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone. The court examined the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the application of the precautionary principle in environmental law. The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s decision, reinforcing the importance of environmental protection in developmental planning. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice A S Bopanna.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land owned by the appellant, Pragnesh Shah, in Mount Abu, Rajasthan. The land was initially designated for “Residential” and “Tourist Facility” use in the Zonal Master Plan 2025. However, after the area was declared an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) in 2009, a new Zonal Master Plan 2030 (ZMP 2030) was created. The appellant’s land was later designated as an “Agricultural Zone” in a draft of ZMP 2030, which was then changed back to “Residential” and “Tourist Facility” after the appellant raised objections. The ZMP 2030 was eventually notified on 29 October 2015.
The first respondent, Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma, challenged the ZMP 2030, arguing that it did not comply with the ESZ Notification. The NGT allowed the appellant to intervene in the proceedings. The NGT then constituted an Expert Committee to assess the claims made in the first respondent’s application. The Expert Committee submitted a report that declared the appellant’s land unsuitable for construction due to its ecological sensitivity.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25 June 2009 | Union Government issues notification declaring Mount Abu as an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). |
| 2015 | Draft of ZMP 2030 incorrectly changed the status of the appellant’s land from “Residential” and “Tourist Facility” to “Agricultural Zone”. |
| 28 September 2015 | MoEF&CC approves ZMP 2030. |
| 29 October 2015 | State of Rajasthan notifies ZMP 2030. |
| 10 April 2017 | NGT allows the appellant to intervene in the proceedings. |
| 26 November 2018 | NGT constitutes an Expert Committee to assess the claims made in the first respondent’s original application. |
| 4 September 2019 | Expert Committee submits its initial report, which was not accepted by NGT. |
| 7 November 2019 | NGT modifies the composition of the Expert Committee. |
| 8 December 2020 | Expert Committee submits its final report, declaring the appellant’s land unsuitable for construction. |
| 10 March 2021 | NGT allows the original application, based on the Expert Committee Report. |
| 29 July 2021 | NGT dismisses the appellant’s review application. |
| 12 January 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeals filed by the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The first respondent challenged the ZMP 2030 before the NGT, arguing that it violated the ESZ Notification by permitting illegal land use changes and failing to protect heritage sites and water bodies. The NGT initially formed an Expert Committee to assess these claims. After the first report was deemed unacceptable, the NGT reconstituted the committee. The second Expert Committee submitted a report that specifically declared the appellant’s land unfit for construction. The NGT accepted this report and directed that the ZMP 2030 be amended to comply with the ESZ Notification. The appellant’s review application was subsequently dismissed by the NGT, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to several key legal provisions:
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act): Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2)(v) and (xiv) empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect the environment, including the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones. The ESZ Notification was issued under this provision.
- Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: Rule 5(3) outlines the procedure for issuing notifications under the EP Act, including inviting objections and suggestions.
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act): Section 14 grants the NGT jurisdiction over civil cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment arising from the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Section 15(1) empowers the NGT to provide relief, compensation, and restitution, including the restoration of the environment. Section 20 mandates the NGT to apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle. Schedule I includes the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the EP Act.
- Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992: Principle 15 outlines the precautionary principle, stating that lack of full scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by directing amendments to the ZMP 2030, as its powers under Section 14 of the NGT Act are limited to addressing substantial questions of environment arising from statutes listed in Schedule I.
- The Expert Committee’s final report was manipulated to favor other sites over the appellant’s. The appellant argued that a draft report, obtained through a Right to Information request, contained a column on biodiversity that was missing in the final report. This missing column, the appellant contended, hid crucial information about the presence of wildlife on the appellant’s land.
- The appellant argued that the Expert Committee Report was discriminatory since other similar sites were granted clearances, while the appellant’s site was not.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The ESZ Notification recognizes the ecological importance of Mount Abu, and the ZMP 2030 was issued in accordance with the ESZ Notification.
- The Expert Committee comprised domain experts who conducted thorough analysis and site visits before identifying issues with the specified sites.
- The Expert Committee Report was based on the precautionary principle and a scientific approach, warranting deference.
- The NGT has the power to direct the restoration of the environment under Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act.
- The appellant’s reliance on the draft report was misplaced as it was an internal document and not in the public domain. Further, the draft report also indicated that the appellant’s site was not suitable for construction.
- There was a valid distinction between the appellant’s site and others where construction was allowed. The appellant’s site was being converted for tourism and residential buildings, while other sites had existing residential land use.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of Appellant | Sub-Submissions of Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of NGT | NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by directing amendments to the ZMP 2030, as its powers under Section 14 of the NGT Act are limited. | The NGT has the power to direct the restoration of the environment under Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act and the ESZ notification was issued under the EP Act, which is in Schedule I of the NGT Act. |
| Merits of Expert Committee Report |
|
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument regarding the missing column on biodiversity in the final report was innovative, attempting to highlight a potential manipulation of the Expert Committee’s findings. However, this argument was not accepted by the court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct amendments to the ZMP 2030.
- Whether the Expert Committee Report was valid and whether the NGT correctly applied the precautionary principle.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct amendments to the ZMP 2030. | Yes | The NGT has the power under Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act to provide for the restoration of the environment. The ESZ Notification, which the ZMP 2030 must comply with, originates from the EP Act, which is listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. |
| Whether the Expert Committee Report was valid and whether the NGT correctly applied the precautionary principle. | Yes | The Expert Committee Report was based on scientific analysis and site visits. The precautionary principle, as mandated by Section 20 of the NGT Act, requires the state to act to prevent environmental harm even in the face of scientific uncertainty. The NGT correctly applied this principle in accepting the report. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India & Ors.: The Supreme Court of India appointed Expert Committees to identify ESZs across India, leading to the identification of Mount Abu as an ESZ.
- Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation [(2019) 18 SCC 494]: The Supreme Court held that Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act affords broad powers to the NGT for restorative measures in the interest of the environment.
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 897]: The Supreme Court held that the NGT can exercise suo motu jurisdiction and has wide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice in environmental matters.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2004) 12 SCC 118]: The Supreme Court emphasized that the precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to prevent harm, even on reasonable suspicion, and that protection of the environment has precedence over economic interests.
- Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India [(2005) 10 SCC 510]: The Supreme Court noted that the precautionary principle is part of Indian jurisprudence, arising from Articles 47, 48-A, and 51-A(g) of the Constitution.
- Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals [(2020) 10 SCC 589]: The Supreme Court reiterated that the precautionary principle makes it mandatory for the State to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
- H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee [(2021) 4 SCC 309]: The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the State to create structures to guide environmental regulation and that Courts cannot be stupefied into inaction due to scientific uncertainty.
Statutes and Rules:
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act): The court considered the provisions of this act relating to the powers of the Central Government to take measures to protect the environment, including the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones.
- Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: The court considered the rules relating to the procedure for issuing notifications under the EP Act.
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act): The court considered the provisions of this act relating to the jurisdiction of the NGT, its powers to grant relief, and the application of the precautionary principle.
| Authority | How it was Considered | Court |
|---|---|---|
| T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India & Ors. | The court noted that this case led to the identification of Mount Abu as an ESZ. | Supreme Court of India |
| Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation [(2019) 18 SCC 494] | The court relied on this judgment to highlight the broad powers of the NGT for environmental restoration. | Supreme Court of India |
| Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 897] | The court cited this case to emphasize the wide powers of the NGT in environmental matters. | Supreme Court of India |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2004) 12 SCC 118] | The court relied on this judgment to explain the precautionary principle and its application. | Supreme Court of India |
| Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India [(2005) 10 SCC 510] | The court used this case to establish that the precautionary principle is a part of Indian jurisprudence. | Supreme Court of India |
| Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals [(2020) 10 SCC 589] | The court reiterated the mandatory nature of the precautionary principle for the State. | Supreme Court of India |
| H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee [(2021) 4 SCC 309] | The court highlighted the duty of the State to guide environmental regulation and the need for judicial intervention even with scientific uncertainty. | Supreme Court of India |
| Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act) | The court considered the provisions of this act relating to the powers of the Central Government to take measures to protect the environment, including the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones. | Parliament of India |
| Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 | The court considered the rules relating to the procedure for issuing notifications under the EP Act. | Government of India |
| National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) | The court considered the provisions of this act relating to the jurisdiction of the NGT, its powers to grant relief, and the application of the precautionary principle. | Parliament of India |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s decision, affirming that the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct amendments to the ZMP 2030 to ensure it complies with the ESZ Notification. The Court also held that the NGT correctly applied the precautionary principle in accepting the Expert Committee Report, which deemed the appellant’s land unsuitable for construction. The court emphasized that environmental protection must take precedence over economic interests, especially in ecologically sensitive zones.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that NGT exceeded its jurisdiction | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the NGT has the power to direct the restoration of the environment under Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Expert Committee Report was manipulated | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the draft report was an internal document and the final report was based on scientific analysis. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Expert Committee Report was discriminatory | The Court rejected this submission, stating that there was a material difference in the location and suitability of the sites for construction. |
| Respondent’s submission that the ESZ Notification recognizes the ecological importance of Mount Abu | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the ESZ Notification was issued to protect the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu. |
| Respondent’s submission that the Expert Committee Report was based on the precautionary principle | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the NGT is mandated to follow the precautionary principle under Section 20 of the NGT Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India & Ors.: The court cited this case to establish the background for the identification of Mount Abu as an ESZ.
- Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation [(2019) 18 SCC 494]: The court relied on this case to support its view that the NGT has broad powers to take restorative measures for the environment.
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 897]: The court used this case to emphasize the wide jurisdiction of the NGT in environmental matters.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2004) 12 SCC 118]: The court cited this case to explain the precautionary principle and its application in environmental law.
- Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India [(2005) 10 SCC 510]: The court relied on this case to establish that the precautionary principle is part of Indian jurisprudence.
- Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals [(2020) 10 SCC 589]: The court used this case to reiterate the mandatory nature of the precautionary principle for the State.
- H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee [(2021) 4 SCC 309]: The court cited this case to emphasize the duty of the State to guide environmental regulation and the need for judicial intervention even with scientific uncertainty.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the need to protect the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu. The court emphasized the importance of the precautionary principle, which requires the State to act to prevent environmental harm even in the face of scientific uncertainty. The court also highlighted the broad powers of the NGT to ensure environmental protection and restoration. The court considered the scientific analysis and site visits conducted by the Expert Committee in arriving at its decision. The court also noted that the ESZ notification was backed by a statutory mandate of Union legislation, which made it an enforceable charter for the preservation of the fragile eco-system of Mount Abu.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to protect the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu | 40% |
| Importance of the precautionary principle | 30% |
| Broad powers of the NGT for environmental protection | 20% |
| Scientific analysis and site visits by the Expert Committee | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The table above shows the ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision. The court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects of the case (30%).
Logical Reasoning
The court considered the arguments of both sides and rejected the appellant’s arguments that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction and that the Expert Committee Report was manipulated. The court also rejected the argument that the appellant’s land was discriminated against. The court accepted the respondent’s arguments that the ESZ Notification recognizes the ecological importance of Mount Abu and the Expert Committee Report was based on the precautionary principle.
The court emphasized the importance of the precautionary principle, stating that it requires the State to act in advance to prevent environmental harm. The court noted that the State cannot refuse to act to preserve the environment simply because all the scientific data may not be available. The court held that if there is some data to suggest that environmental degradation is possible, the State must step into action to prevent it from taking place.
The court quoted from the judgment:
“The precautionary principle requires the State to act in advance to prevent environmental harm from taking place, rather than by adopting measures once the harm has taken place.”
“In deciding when to adopt such action, the State cannot hide behind the veil of scientific uncertainty in calculating the exact scientific harm.”
“The ESZ notification required, inter alia , the State of Rajasthan to prepare the ZMP 2030, so as to ensure th at future development activity in the region could be planned while accounting for potential environmental degradation, following the precautionary principle.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The NGT has the jurisdiction to direct amendments to Zonal Master Plans within Eco-Sensitive Zones to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.
- The precautionary principle requires the State to act to prevent environmental harm, even in the face of scientific uncertainty.
- Environmental protection must take precedence over economic interests, especially in ecologically sensitive areas.
- Expert Committee reports based on scientific analysis are given due deference by the courts.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the ZMP 2030 be modified to bring it into conformity with the ESZ Notification and the precautionary principle. Specifically, it upheld the Expert Committee Report’s recommendation that no construction should be allowed to take place on the appellant’s land.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct amendments to a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) within an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) to ensure compliance with the ESZ Notification and the precautionary principle. This case reinforces the importance of the precautionary principle in environmental law and the broad powers of the NGT to ensure environmental protection. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. reinforces the importance of environmental protection in developmental planning. The court upheld the NGT’s order, emphasizing the need for compliance with environmental regulations and the application of the precautionary principle. This judgment serves as a reminder that economic interests cannot come at the cost of environmental degradation, especially in ecologically sensitive zones.
Category
Parent category: Environmental Law
Child categories: Eco-Sensitive Zone, National Green Tribunal, Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 14, Section 15, Section 20
Parent category: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Child categories: Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 20, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Parent category: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Child categories: Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
FAQ
Q: What is an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)?
A: An Eco-Sensitive Zone is an area notified by the government around protected areas, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries to regulate and manage activities to protect the environment.
Q: What is the precautionary principle in environmental law?
A: The precautionary principle states that if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Q: What is the role of the National Green Tribunal (NGT)?
A: The NGT is a specialized body that handles cases related to environmental protection and conservation. It has the power to provide relief, compensation, and restitution for environmental damage.
Q: Can the NGT direct changes to a Zonal Master Plan?
A: Yes, the NGT has the power to direct amendments to a Zonal Master Plan to ensure it complies with environmental regulations, especially in Eco-Sensitive Zones.
Q: What does this judgment mean for development in Eco-Sensitive Zones?
A: This judgment reinforces that development in Eco-Sensitive Zones must be planned carefully to protect the environment. Environmental protection must take precedence over economic interests, and the precautionary principle must be applied.