The Supreme Court of India ruled that the 2020 MoEF notification exempting linear projects like roads and pipelines from prior Environmental Clearance was unconstitutional. Learn about the judgment, its impact, and why public consultation matters in environmental law in India.

Introduction

On March 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Noble M. Paikada vs Union of India, addressing the legality of exemptions granted to certain infrastructure projects from prior Environmental Clearance (EC). This case significantly impacts environmental regulation and public participation in India.

Background of the Case

The 2006 and 2016 Notifications

Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) introduced the 2006 Notification, which mandated EC for projects classified as Category A and B before construction or expansion.

In 2016, the MoEF updated this with a new notification exempting certain activities like dredging and silt removal for construction or maintenance under Item 6, following public consultation.

The Controversial 2020 Notification

On March 28, 2020, the MoEF issued the 2020 Notification, amending the 2016 rules without public consultation. It allowed extraction of ordinary soil for “linear projects” such as roads and pipelines without requiring EC—prompting legal challenges.

Legal Challenge and Key Issue

The 2020 amendment was challenged in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and later appealed to the Supreme Court. The core issue:

Was Item 6 of the 2020 Notification—granting exemption from EC for soil excavation in linear projects—arbitrary, ambiguous, and unconstitutional?

Supreme Court Judgment Highlights

Violation of Article 21

The Court ruled the exemption violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a pollution-free environment. Skipping public consultation made the notification unconstitutional.

Ignoring Public Participation

The 2020 Notification breached Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Unlike the 2016 amendment, it failed to invite public objections, undermining the democratic process in environmental policymaking.

Arbitrary and Vague Provisions

The Court criticized the exemption for being:

• Ambiguous: Lacking clarity on excavation limits, methods, or oversight.

• Arbitrary: No justification for exempting linear projects during a COVID-19 lockdown.

• Unregulated: No authority defined to determine what qualifies as a “linear project.”

As a result, Item 6 of the 2020 Notification was struck down.

Impact and Significance of the Ruling

This ruling reinforces that environmental governance in India must involve transparency and public participation. The judgment strengthens judicial oversight and sets a precedent for:

• Upholding environmental rights under Article 21

• Ensuring public consultation in environmental decision-making

• Preventing arbitrary exemptions for infrastructure projects

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Noble M. Paikada vs Union of India underscores the balance between development and environmental protection. By invalidating the EC exemption for linear projects, the Court reaffirmed the need for clarity, regulation, and public engagement in environmental law.