2019 (3) TMI 2072 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of an Environmental Clearance EC for the development of a greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa - Disclosure of Environmental Sensitivity, including forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs) - Public Consultation and Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) - lack of sampling points - non-disclosure of reserved forests - HELD THAT - It would be appropriate if the EAC is directed to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its EC on the basis of the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment. Such an exercise primarily is for the EAC to carry out in its expert decision making capacity. The EAC is entrusted with that function as an expert body. The role of judicial review is to ensure that the rule of law is observed. Hence, it is proposed by the directions which we will issue under Article 142 of the Constitution, to direct the EAC to revisit the conditions for the grant of an EC. While doing so, it would be open to the EAC to have due regard to the conditions which were incorporated in the order of the NGT and to suitably modulate those conditions in pursuance of the liberty which we have preserved to it. To facilitate an expeditious decision, the EAC is directed to carry out this exercise in a prescribed time schedule during which period, the EC shall remain suspended. The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC, including the conditions which it has formulated, having regard to the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment - Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise, the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 shall remain suspended - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Environmental Clearance (EC) for the Mopa Airport project.
2. Disclosure of Environmental Sensitivity, including forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs).
3. Public Consultation and Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
4. Sampling Points for environmental parameters.
5. Felling of Trees.
6. The appellate jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the requirement of a merits review.
7. Environmental Rule of Law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Environmental Clearance (EC) for the Mopa Airport Project:

The appeal challenged the grant of an EC for the Mopa Airport project in Goa. The NGT had affirmed the EC but imposed additional conditions for environmental protection. The Supreme Court scrutinized the process leading to the grant of EC, emphasizing the importance of transparency and full disclosure by the project proponent in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

2. Disclosure of Environmental Sensitivity, including Forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs):

The project proponent failed to disclose the presence of forests and ESZs within a 15 km radius in Form 1, a crucial document for the EIA process. The Court rejected the argument that only statutorily recognized forests needed disclosure, emphasizing that the term "forests" should be understood in its ordinary sense, as established in the Godavarman case. The EIA report also failed to acknowledge ESZs within the study area, which was deemed a significant omission.

3. Public Consultation and Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC):

Public consultation is a critical component of the EIA process, intended to incorporate the concerns of affected communities. The Court found that the EAC failed to adequately consider the environmental concerns raised during public consultation, reducing them to issues of employment opportunities. The EAC's appraisal lacked a detailed analysis of the EIA report and relied on extraneous factors, such as public interest and land acquisition delays, rather than environmental impact.

4. Sampling Points for Environmental Parameters:

The EIA report's sampling for air, water, and noise quality was confined to Goa, neglecting the Maharashtra region, which constituted 40% of the study area. This omission was considered a deficiency in the EIA process, impacting the accuracy of environmental assessments.

5. Felling of Trees:

The EIA report understated the extent of tree felling, initially claiming only a few trees would be affected. In reality, permissions were granted for the felling of 54,676 trees. The Court criticized this significant omission, highlighting the need for transparency and accurate disclosure in the EIA process.

6. The Appellate Jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Requirement of a Merits Review:

The NGT's review of the EC was inadequate, failing to conduct a merits review as required under Section 16 of the NGT Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the NGT's role as an expert adjudicatory body tasked with applying principles of sustainable development and conducting a thorough review of environmental clearances.

7. Environmental Rule of Law:

The judgment underscored the importance of environmental governance within a rule of law framework, emphasizing sustainable development and the need for effective, transparent, and accountable institutions. The Court highlighted the interconnectedness of environmental protection with broader goals such as public health, economic development, and social equity.

Directions Issued:

The Supreme Court directed the EAC to revisit the EC conditions, addressing the specific environmental concerns highlighted in the judgment. The EC was suspended pending this review, and the EAC was instructed to report back to the Court. The judgment reinforced the need for a balanced approach, ensuring that infrastructure development proceeds with due regard for environmental sustainability.