Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court framed principles for environmental compensation under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 and directed MoEF&CC to issue guidelines under Rule 17(2).
The CLU dated 13.12.2021 was unlawful because the site was zoned rural agricultural under the operative Master Plan and the PRTPD Act prescribes that any alteration of land use must follow the statutory procedure (ss.70,75,76); the Planning Board's approval on 05.01.2022 could not retrospectively cure the jurisdictional defect or operate as an amendment of the Master Plan without compliance with the statutory revision process; siting norms and prior environmental clearance requirements were not satisfied; consequently the CLU and related pollution consent (insofar as based on it) were quashed…
Source excerpt
Futala Tank is a man-made waterbody originally constructed for irrigation and drinking purposes and therefore falls outside the statutory definition of 'wetland' under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules; consequently the prohibitions of Rule 4 do not apply strictly, but the Court upheld the High Court's protective directions to respect the spirit of Rule 4 (including avoidance of permanent structures and maintenance of the waterbody) invoking the public trust doctrine and precautionary principle; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Schedule to the EIA 2006 Notification, read literally, does not make the General Conditions applicable to Items 8(a) (Building and Construction Projects) and 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects) because Column 5 does not express such applicability; accordingly the Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29.01.2025 (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the OM dated 30.01.2025 are upheld, Note 1 to Entry 8(a) is quashed, and the NGT order dated 09.08.2024 (which treated Items 8(a)/8(b) as subject to General Conditions and directed central appraisal) does not survive for consideration
Source excerpt
The impugned NGT orders were set aside because the NGT and the joint committee did not comply with the statutory sampling and analysis procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act, and the NGT violated Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act and principles of natural justice by failing to implead the appellant or afford it a fair hearing before imposing civil consequences (compensation); NGT cannot abdicate its adjudicatory function by relying solely on an administrative committee's report.
Source excerpt
The Court refused the State's request to permit use of fragmented land parcels without compliance with Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, directed that all such fragmented parcels be declared protected forest, but allowed limited regularisation of encroachments made prior to 12 December 1996 for specified uses up to 10365.049 hectares as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee, adding paragraph (x-a) to the earlier judgment to that effect.
Source excerpt
The NGT's imposition of Rs.50 Crore compensation was set aside because the methodology—basing penalty on turnover—lacked lawful nexus to environmental damage and was not in accordance with recognized principles; the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the Enforcement Directorate to invoke the PMLA; however, directions permitting continuous monitoring, fresh water audit and restoration were within NGT's powers and were retained; directions for closure of divisions and the PMLA invocation were set aside.
Source excerpt
The grant of environmental clearance dated 19.04.2022 was invalid because it was based on a District Survey Report that did not contain a replenishment study prepared in accordance with the EIA Notification 2016 and the Sand Mining Guidelines (2016) and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines (2020); a DSR lacking replenishment data is legally untenable and the NGT's order setting aside the EC was rightly upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the impugned 29.01.2025 notification as properly clarifying the scope and definition of 'built up area' and confirming the role of SEIAA, but held that Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which exempts industrial sheds and educational buildings (school, college, hostel) from applicability of the 2006 notification, is arbitrary and therefore quashed; the O.M. dated 30.01.2025 was upheld as it clarifies applicability to Kerala and is conducive to environmental interest.
Source excerpt
The Pollution Control Boards, exercising powers under ss.33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages as fixed sums or require bank guarantees as ex-ante measures to prevent or remedy environmental harm, but such powers must be exercised in accordance with subordinate legislation incorporating principles of natural justice, transparency and certainty; this is distinct from punitive penalties which must follow the statutory procedure in Chapters VII and VI and be imposed by the adjudicatory mechanism.
Source excerpt
Explore more
