Important Environmental Law orders and judgments passed in 2024
An essential article on how courts and the NGT attempted to ensure the implementation of environmental laws in India over the past year.
Published:17th Jan, 2025 at 8:52 PM
This piece is a comprehensive reckoner on the important judgments and orders in the field of environmental law passed by the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the course of 2024.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court stays operation of the office memorandums issued by Central government on ex post facto environmental clearance
Vanashakti v. Union of India
Order dated January 2, 2024
The Supreme Court of India imposed a stay on the operation of two office memorandums dated July 7, 2021 and January 28 2022, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The interim order was passed in a public interest litigation filed by a non-governmental organisation Vanashakti,contending that Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for a project could only take place before the commencement of an activity and not thereafter. The applicant contended that the two office memorandums permitted the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance (EC) thereby allowing the projects to regularise the operations carried out by them without getting prior EC.
Supreme Court pulls up NGT for dismissing application without holding inquiry into allegations of illegal filling up of water bodies
Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Order dated January 4, 2024
The Court expressed concern over the approach adopted by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) while dismissing an application alleging that a water body is sought to be filled. The applicant had placed on record certain photographs in support of the complaint. However, NGT had dismissed the application without holding any inquiry. While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court stated that when a citizen approaches NGT with a grievance, a different approach by NGT is contemplated and it should not apply the strict yardsticks of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the pleadings of the parties. Supreme Court directed NGT to hold an inquiry in accordance with the law and to decide the original application filed by the appellant afresh as NGT has not discharged its duty in accordance with the law.
Supreme Court directs Central government to frame policy to phase out heavy duty diesel vehicles
Container Corporation of India Ltd v. Ajay Khera and Ors
Order dated January 11, 2024
The Supreme Court directed the Central government to formulate a policy on phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with Bharat Stage – VI vehicles within a period of six months. The applicant before NGT had raised the issue of pollution being caused by the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad, Delhi. The applicant before NGT had alleged that due to the inflow of many trucks/trailers to ICD, air pollution in Delhi National Capital Region has substantially increased owing to the emissions from trucks/trailers. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to file a report on the issues raised in the appeal along with its recommendations. Based on the recommendations of EPCA, the Supreme Court issued direction to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to continue the process of exploring the possibility of finding better sources, including compressed natural gas/hybrid/electric, for the use of heavy-duty vehicles.
Supreme Court issues guidelines for CEC to promote institutional transparency, efficiency and accountability
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated January 31, 2024
The judgment was passed in the context of institutionalisation and reconstitution of the CEC. The Supreme Court found that through the notification dated September 5, 2023, concerns regarding the functioning of the CEC as an ad hoc body and the need for its institutionalisation as a permanent body have been addressed. The said notification provides for the constitution of the CEC, its powers, functions, mandate, members, method of appointment, terms of service and monitoring of its functioning. The importance of ensuring the effective functioning of the environmental bodies was emphasised and reiterated by Supreme Court. It noted that the role of the constitutional courts is also to monitor the proper institutionalisation of environmental regulatory bodies and authorities. It also listed the institutional features pertaining to the functioning of the bodies, authorities, regulators and executive offices entrusted with environmental duties, in furtherance of the principles of environmental rule of law.
Supreme Court directs states and union territories to follow the definition of ‘forest’ as per the Godavarman judgment till forests are identified as per the Forest Amendment Act 2023
Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd.) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated February 19, 2024
The order was passed in a writ petition contending that the expansive definition of ‘forest’ provided in the Godavarman judgment has been narrowed down as per Section 1A inserted through the Forest Amendment Act. According to the new definition, a land must be either notified as a forest or specifically recorded as a forest in government records to qualify as a ‘forest’. Whereas, as per the Godavarman Judgment, the term ‘forest’ must be understood in terms of the dictionary meaning. MoEFCC was directed to ensure that all states and union territories provide a comprehensive record of lands which have been identified as forests by the expert committees constituted by the respective states and union territories in pursuance of the directions in the Godavarman judgment. All states and union territories were also directed to forward the reports of their respective expert committees by March 31, 2024. MoEFCC was directed to digitise and maintain these records and make it available on the official website by April 15, 2024.
Supreme Court issues notice over alleged illegal tree felling by Delhi Development Authority in Delhi ridge area
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda
Order dated June 26, 2024
The direction was passed while hearing the contempt case regarding the felling of a large number of trees by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in alleged violation of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. Earlier, the Court had directed DDA to provide records relating to the site visit of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi and the alleged directions issued by the LG Delhi for felling of trees. Upon the request of DDA seeking further time to produce the records, the Court on June 26 expressed its dissatisfaction. It directed the Environment and Forest Department, Delhi to submit an affidavit detailing why it had not taken any action despite knowing about serious violations by DDA.
Further, the Court directed the department to confirm if the Tree Authority constituted under the Delhi Trees Act meets quarterly as required by the law and if it has adequate infrastructure. Immediate action was also mandated for the seizure of felled trees and the DDA was instructed to promptly locate and communicate the whereabouts of felled trees to the Tree Authority within a week and to cooperate fully in the seizure process. The Tree Authority was also required to file an affidavit confirming compliance with the directives. Emphasising the urgency of action and the need for establishment of a continuous, prompt and effective vigil mechanism to keep a check on activities of illegal felling or damaging of trees, the Court has directed the Delhi government to immediately create the necessary infrastructure, with the inclusion of modern technology for vigilance.
Supreme Court delivers split verdict on petitions challenging government approval granted for environmental release of genetically engineered mustard
Gene Campaign and Anr v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated July 23, 2024
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol delivered a split decision in a batch of petitions challenging the trials and environmental release of genetically modified mustard and the rules governing them. The petitions sought directions to the Central government to ensure that the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989 (GEO Rules) should be brought in consonance with the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought directions to restrain the use of gene modification technology without having requisite safeguards and regulatory regimes in place. Another petition challenged the procedure adopted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for appraisal of Dhara Mustard Hybrid - 11 (DMH-11). It also alleged that the Assessment of Food/Feed and Environmental Safety (AFES) Report considered by GEAC was inadequate.
The judgment by Justice Nagarathna held that approval for environmental release of transgenic DMH - 11 was liable to be quashed and directed the GEAC to undertake a consultation with relevant stakeholders to decide whether transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 is a Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crop or not. Thereafter, a policy decision should be taken afresh on environmental release of the same. Justice Nagarathna also passed a general direction that the GEAC should be reformed to include experts from the field of agriculture, biotechnology, ethics, sociology, health and environment.
Justice Karol in his judgment opined that the ban on HT crops would be unwarranted as it should be a policy decision. The challenge to the constitutionality of the GEO Rules was also rejected. The judgment held that the decision of GEAC to grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of mind or any other principle of law. The Bench passed the common judgment that the judicial review of decision taken by bodies concerned in the matter of genetically modified organisms is permissible and directed the Central government to consult stakeholders in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, state governments, representatives of farmers, etc for evolving a national policy on genetically modified crops.
In view of the difference of opinion on the decision of GEAC granting conditional approval for environmental release of DMH – 11, the matter will be referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration of the matter before an appropriate bench.
Supreme Court sets aside NGT order for criminal action against Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB) officers
P Arun Prasad and Another v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated August 12, 2024
The direction was passed by NGT while considering an application filed by the CECB seeking an extension of time to comply with an earlier order passed by NGT. NGT had directed CECB to make its website user-friendly and provide public access to industry-related information. NGT concluded that CECB had adopted an uncooperative attitude despite the urgency of the matter, which related to environmental monitoring. It opined that the Chairman and Member Secretary had committed an offence by failing to comply with its orders and directed the initiation of penal action. However, the Supreme Court while considering the appeal filed by the CECB officers, observed that although there was a delay, it did not amount to willful negligence or abject dereliction of duty. Noting that CECB is now compliant with NGT’s directions, Supreme Court set aside the order passed by NGT.
Supreme Court directs states to fill vacancies in Pollution Control Boards by April 30, 2025
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (In Re: Number of vacant posts in statutory Pollution Control Boards of various states)
Order dated August 27, 2024
The Court directed the governments of Rajasthan, Punjab, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to fill the vacancies in their respective State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) by April 30, 2025. It was considering the issue of a substantial number of vacant posts in these five states falling within the National Capital Region (NCR). It observed that the SPCBs have become ineffective due to the large number of vacant posts. Noting that the issue of stubble burning and pollution in NCR would arise in the ensuing winters, it directed all the states to urgently undertake recruitment for these important posts through direct recruitment within two months.
Supreme Court appoints NEERI to define and clarify the meaning of ‘non-polluting industries’
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors (In Re: Taj Trapezium Zone)
Order dated September 6, 2024
National Environmental Engineering Research of India (NEERI) has been directed to consult experts from the Energy and Wetlands Research Group, Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Environmental Science and Engineering Department, IIT Bombay, Environment Safeguards Specialist, IIT Bombay, Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research while undertaking the task.
Supreme Court holds that head of the government department will be held responsible for failure to comply with order of NGT
Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai and Ors v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS and Ors
Judgment dated September 11, 2024
The Court passed the order while considering an appeal arising out of the order passed by NGT. NGT had held that it could not consider an execution application filed against the officers of the government department because they were not impleaded in their personal capacity in the original application. The applicant before NGT challenged the order of NGT before Supreme Court on the ground that by legal fiction under Section 28 (1) of the NGT Act, 2010, the head of the government department will be deemed guilty of failure and liable to be proceeded against when the government department has failed to comply with the directions of NGT. The Court observed that NGT could not have interfered at the stage of issuing notice and should have allowed the respondents to raise all possible defences including the defence that they were not responsible for complying with the order sought to be implemented.
DDA Chairperson directed to personally file response on aspects regarding tree felling in Delhi ridge area
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated October 16, 2024.
The order was passed in a contempt petition filed against the officials of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for felling trees despite the dismissal of their application seeking permission before Supreme Court. The Chairperson was directed to furnish information regarding the steps taken for identification of officers responsible for suppression of facts before Supreme Court in the earlier responses filed by DDA. Additionally, the Chairperson was asked to clarify whether any disciplinary proceedings or criminal action have been instituted against the responsible officers.
Supreme Court sets aside NGT orders imposing penalties on Benzo Chem
Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors
Judgment dated November 27, 2024
The Court quashed two orders passed by NGT dated in August and November 2022, through which it had imposed penalties on Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited for alleged environmental violations. It found that NGT’s findings of non-compliance were not supported by evidence and were contrary to the reports of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and NEERI. These reports confirmed appellant’s compliance with environmental norms.
The Court criticised NGT for adopting an arbitrary methodology in imposing a penalty of ₹25 crore, which was calculated based on the appellant’s revenue ranging between ₹100-500 crore as found in the public domain. The Court noted that such a method lacked legal justification and violated principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not accorded an opportunity to be heard before the imposition of penalties. It held that any future allegations of non-compliance must be adjudicated in adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court remands Grasim Industries cases to NGT for fresh consideration due to procedural lapses
Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Judgement dated November 27, 2024
NGT had imposed penalties of ₹7.5 crore in one case and ₹8.2 crore and ₹7.56 crore in another for alleged environmental violations, including failure to install a flow meter for emissions and issues related to hazardous by-products. The Supreme Court found that Grasim was neither impleaded as a party in NGT proceedings nor given an opportunity to be heard. It noted that the decisions were based solely on the reports of a Joint Committee appointed by the NGT and devoid of any independent judicial analysis. The Court observed that such an approach contravened established principles of natural justice. It thys remanded the matters to NGT for fresh consideration, directing that Grasim must be impleaded as a respondent in any further proceedings.
Supreme Court asks Uttar Pradesh to review penalty provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated November 29, 2024
The provisions in question provide the penalty for felling or removing trees in violation of the provisions of the Act and the power for compounding of such an offence. The order was passed based on the observations of the Supreme Court that the penalty provided under the statute is inadequate and is not sufficient to deter the persons from illegal felling of trees. It was also noted that the amount based on which the offence could be compounded under Section 15 was too low.
Supreme Court highlights non-compliance with Solid Waste Management Rules and illegal dumping in Delhi
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated December 19, 2024
The Supreme Court expressed concern over non-compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 by the Delhi government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). It granted the Delhi government time to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing compliance with specific provisions and timelines prescribed under the 2016 Rules. The Court noted that Delhi generates 11,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste daily, with a processing gap of 3,000 tonnes per day. It noted that this gap in processing capacity results in large-scale illegal dumping, posing significant environmental and public health risks. It also highlighted that such a situation violates the fundamental right of citizens to live in a pollution-free environment. It further urged authorities to adopt innovative measures to address the shortfall and warned that unchecked waste generation could necessitate a review of the development activities in the city.
Supreme Court also addressed the issue of 3,800 (three thousand eight hundred) tonnes of solid waste being dumped daily at the Ghazipur and Bhalsawa sites, leading to environmental degradation and frequent fires. Delhi Government was directed to submit an affidavit by 15 January 2025, detailing measures implemented to prevent fires at these dumping sites and their adverse environmental effects. This affidavit must include data on fire incidents during 2024 and preventive actions taken. Delhi Government and MCD were directed to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing all aspects of compliance with the 2016 Rules.
Supreme Court directs the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to ban firecrackers in NCR
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors (In Re: Ban on the use of firecrackers)
Order dated December 19, 2024
The Supreme Court considered the Delhi government’s order dated December 19, 2024, issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA), impos
.jpg)
