Between 2020 and 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed key issues in environmental law, constitutional rights, and governance. The Court reaffirmed that ‘ex post facto’ Environmental Clearance is incompatible with environmental principles and upheld the Central Vista project. It recognized the National Green Tribunal’s broad powers and enforced guidelines for Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected forests. The Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act related to Jallikattu, recognized the right to be free from climate change’s adverse effects under Articles 14 and 21, and issued crucial forest conservation guidelines. Additionally, a split verdict on genetically modified mustard led to the matter being referred to a larger bench.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the idea of ‘ex post
facto’ Environmental Clearance (EC) contradicts fundamental principles of
environmental law. The Court emphasized that environmental law cannot
accommodate the concept of retrospective clearance, as it conflicts with both
the precautionary principle and the necessity for sustainable development,
echoing the observations made in Common Cause v. Union of India.
Rajeev Suri v. Delhi
Development Authority, 2021 SCC Online SC 7
The
Supreme Court has approved the Central Vista project which proposes the
construction of a new parliament three times larger than the current
93-year-old heritage building and the modification of the use of 86.1 acres
of land in Delhi. In a 2:1 majority decision, the court held that grant of
environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use for the
project was valid.
Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC Online SC 7
The
Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo
motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and
media reports. The Court held that the NGT must be seen as a sui generis
institution as the National Green
Tribunals
Act, 2010 (NGT Act) provides the Tribunal with wide ranging powers beyond
that of a mere adjudicatory body.
In
Re: T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online SC 716
The
Supreme Court observed that the Guidelines framed by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change appeared to be reasonable and we
accept the view of the Standing Committee that uniform Guidelines may not be
possible in respect of each sanctuary or national park for maintaining ESZ.
Also, the minimum width of 1 kilometer ESZ ought to be maintained in respect
of the protected forests, which forms part of the recommendations of the CEC
in relation to Category B protected forests. And, the Mining within the
national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India 2023
SCC Online SC 661
The
Constitution Bench noted that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act had the
legislative power to make amendments in accordance with Entry 17 to List III
of
the Seventh Schedule and that these laws cannot be interpreted as “colourable
legislations.” The Court further observed that the question as to whether the
Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve the cultural heritage of a particular
State ought not be a part of judicial inquiry and this question cannot be
conclusively determined in the writ proceedings, since legislative exercise
has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of
cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. In the Court’s opinion, the Tamil Nadu
Amendment
Act does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not
violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of
India. The Court finally held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act read along
with the Rules framed in that behalf was not directly contrary to the ratio
of
the judgment in the case of A. Nagaraja and
judgment of this Court delivered on 16 November 2016 dismissing the plea for
review of the A. Nagaraja judgment.
MK
Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors.
(2024)
The
Supreme Court has recognized the right to be free from the adverse effects of
climate change as a distinct right. The Court identified Articles 14
(equality before the law and equal protection of laws) and 21 (right to life
and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution as key sources of this
right. The Court referenced landmark judgments such as M.C. Mehta v. Kamal
Nath and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, which recognized the right to a
clean environment as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
[WP (C) No. 115/2004]
Aruna Rodrigues & Ors. v. Union Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. [WP (C) No. 260/2015]
(2024)
The
Supreme Court delivered a split verdict regarding petitions challenging the
Union Government’s approval to release genetically modified mustard. Justice
BV Nagarathna quashed the approval granted by the Genetic Engineering
Appraisal Committee and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, while
Justice Sanjay Karol upheld it. Due to this difference of opinion, the bench
directed the registry to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for
the constitution of a larger bench to reconsider the issue. Notably, during
the hearing, the Union Government had agreed not to implement the decision.
Re: T N Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India & Others
(31/01/2024)
The
Supreme Court of India issued crucial interim guidelines to protect forest
lands, which included the immediate halt of unapproved activities and the
suspension of tree felling without authorized working plans. A ban on the
movement of timber from seven northeastern states was also imposed to prevent
illegal transportation. Each state government was mandated to establish an
Expert Committee to identify forest areas and assess sustainable forest
capacity for timber-based industries. Reports on the operations of sawmills,
veneer, and plywood units were required within a few months. Additionally, a
monitoring committee was set up to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders.
Sawmills within eight kilometers of demarcated forest areas were prohibited
from operating and directed to relocate. These measures were aimed at
preserving forests, regulating wood industries, and ensuring sustainable
forest management practices.
Welcome to our comprehensive roundup of the Judgment Series for 2020-2024! In this series, we’ve explored the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence through detailed reviews and interpretations of landmark cases. read more…
The High Courts in India have delivered significant rulings relating to constitutional, criminal, administrative matters, etc. This blog post will take a round up of some of the important judgments. read more…
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Tax Law 2020-2024. The landscape of Tax Law from 2021 to 2024. read more…
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Company Law. The landscape of Company Law from 2020 to 2024 has. read more…
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we have covered Landmark Series on Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Indian Penal Code, CrPC, and Evidence. Now, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Environmental Law
Between 2020 and 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed key issues in environmental law, constitutional rights, and governance. The Court reaffirmed that ‘ex post facto’ Environmental Clearance is incompatible with environmental principles and upheld the Central Vista project. It recognized the National Green Tribunal’s broad powers and enforced guidelines for Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected forests. The Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act related to Jallikattu, recognized the right to be free from climate change’s adverse effects under Articles 14 and 21, and issued crucial forest conservation guidelines. Additionally, a split verdict on genetically modified mustard led to the matter being referred to a larger bench.
Share this:
Related
Round-Up: Judgment Series 2020-2024
Welcome to our comprehensive roundup of the Judgment Series for 2020-2024! In this series, we’ve explored the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence through detailed reviews and interpretations of landmark cases. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: High Courts
The High Courts in India have delivered significant rulings relating to constitutional, criminal, administrative matters, etc. This blog post will take a round up of some of the important judgments. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Tax Law
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Tax Law 2020-2024. The landscape of Tax Law from 2021 to 2024. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Company Law
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Company Law. The landscape of Company Law from 2020 to 2024 has. read more…
Share this: