Category: Environment

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – 3(2)(v)(1) – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(d) – The Court finds the exemption to be unguided and arbitrary, lacking specific criteria for the quantity of earth extraction and the definition of linear projects – The Court concludes that the exemption under item 6 of the impugned notification is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India – The amended notification also fails to address these concerns adequately – Appeal Partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOBLE M. PAIKADA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Environmental Rule of Law – The importance of ensuring the effective functioning of these environmental bodies as this is imperative for the protection, restitution, and development of the ecology – The role of the constitutional courts is therefore to monitor the proper institutionalisation of environmental regulatory bodies and authorities

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Protection of Chittorgarh Fort – Directions issued – Blasting operations undertaken for limestone extraction resulting in possible damage to the existing structures of the Chittorgarh Fort – Keeping in perspective the continuous exposure of ancient monuments to peak particle velocity (PPV) arising from blasting, a radius of five kilometres from the compound wall of the Fort shall not be subjected to mining by blasting or use of explosives for mining of any minerals

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 – Section 18 – Development Plan – – NGT could not have directed the delegatee who has been delegated powers under the TCP Act to enact the regulations, to do so in a particular manner – Development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind…

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 15 and 18(1) – Environment Pollution – Pollution created by Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad – NGT has inter alia observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR, as if only the people living in Delhi NCR alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country. Such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. — Appellant Vs. AJAY KHERA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Sections 25 and 26 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Section 21 – Grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) – An appeal could have been preferred by the appellant for challenging condition no. 4 by taking recourse to Section 28 of the Water Act and Section 31 of the Air Act – In fact, the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that the attention of the Appellate Authority was invited to the aforesaid condition no.4 – After having acted upon the ex-post facto CTE dated 18th October 2017, the appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SWETA ESTATE PVT. LTD. GURGAON — Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(6) – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 5 – Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Order of ban on ‘reinforced’ paper cups is upheld and in the matter of ban non-woven plastic bags, back to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) for consideration – However, given that there is scientific basis for the ban, and it is the State Government’s policy decision to ban numerous categories of single use plastic products, in public interest, there is little room or reason, for this court to interfere on the ground of merits of the ban

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.