NOBLE M PAIKADA vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024

NOBLE M PAIKADA vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024

Case Title and Citation: NOBLE M PAIKADA V. UNION OF INDIA 2024 INSC 241 (21 March 2024)

Factual Background

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued a notification in 2006 requiring prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for specific construction projects under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act). In 2016, the MoEF introduced Appendix-IX, which exempted certain cases, like dredging/de-silting of rivers and canals for maintenance, from requiring EC, following public consultations. On March 28, 2020, the MoEF issued a new notification (the “impugned notification”) that amended this exemption list. The key change was the newly added Item 6, which granted a complete exemption from the EC requirement for the extraction or borrowing of ordinary earth intended for linear projects like roads and pipelines. This 2020 notification was issued without inviting objections from the public. The Appellant challenged the legality of this new exemption, arguing it lacked safeguards, before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT held that the blanket exemption required appropriate safeguards. The appeal against the NGT’s judgment was subsequently filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Central Government’s action of issuing the 2020 Notification, specifically Item 6 which exempted the extraction of earth for linear projects from prior Environmental Clearance, was illegal due to failure to follow the mandatory public consultation procedure?
2. Whether Item 6 of the notification, granting a blanket exemption for ordinary earth extraction without defining quantity, area, or procedure, was arbitrary and unconstitutional, thus violating Article 14 and the right to a pollution-free environment guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution?

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and struck down (quashed) Item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX in the notification dated 28 March 2020. The Court also struck down the corresponding Item 6 in the subsequent amended notification of 30 August 2023, declaring the exemption illegal and unconstitutional.

Reason for the decision

1. Procedural Violation (Rule 5(3) and (4) of EP Rules): The Central Government failed to adhere to Rule 5(3) of the EP Rules, which requires giving notice and inviting objections from the public before imposing or altering restrictions on operations. The power to dispense with this requirement under Rule 5(4) was invoked in the name of “public interest,” but the Ministry failed to provide any reasons or documentation justifying this drastic decision. The Court noted the notification was issued with “undue haste” during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, when construction had ceased, demonstrating no genuine need to forgo public consultation.
2. Violation of Constitutional Rights: The right to live in a pollution-free environment is guaranteed under Article 21, and citizens have a fundamental duty to protect the environment (Article 51A). Bypassing citizen participation prevents major stakeholders from having a say in critical environmental matters.
3. Arbitrariness and Vagueness (Article 14): Item 6 granted a completely unguided and blanket exemption, which is arbitrary and defeats the purpose of the EP Act. The exemption failed to specify critical parameters, such as the quantum of earth that could be extracted, the area of extraction, or the appropriate safeguards and procedure to be followed. Furthermore, the term “linear projects” was left undefined, making the scope of the exemption vague and vulnerable to misuse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the blanket exemption from Environmental Clearance for extracting earth for linear projects was fundamentally flawed due to the illegal procedural bypass and the inherent arbitrariness and vagueness of the provision. By striking down Item 6, the Court reinforced the constitutional requirement that the Central Government must strictly comply with mandatory public consultation procedures when making environmental policy changes, and any exemption must be specific, well-defined, and adequately safeguarded to uphold the right to a clean environment.