The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) upholding environmental clearance for a port expansion project in Gujarat, while granting the petitioner liberty to move a fresh application before the NGT, raising specific environmental concerns.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has, at the same time, expressed concern over what it described as a growing trend of environmental litigation being used to stall major infrastructure projects.
The petitioner challenged the environmental clearance granted for the expansion of a port project, citing concerns relating to fisheries, biodiversity, marine ecology and the economic viability of the project after a previous clearance remained unimplemented for over a decade. The petitioner argued that the expansion would adversely affect fisheries in the Saurashtra region and claimed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report failed to adequately assess ecological consequences, including the impact on marine species such as olive ridley turtles and marine mammals.
“The NGT should have looked at my appeal and given me a reasoned order, not a cut-paste of the EIA report,” the petitioner submitted before the Bench.
The Bench repeatedly emphasised that environmental concerns must be balanced with developmental and infrastructural needs, particularly in relation to strategic projects such as ports. The CJI expressed concern over the growing trend of environmental litigation being used to stall infrastructure projects.
“The problem is, the kind of litigation these are filed on, it could stall all the government’s projects..how the country is going to progress, we can’t understand this. Yes, environment is necessary. We appreciate a person coming that these are the precautions required to be taken. Please go ahead but make sure that these are the precautions you take. First attempt is to stall everything. NGT has passed a detailed order, speaking order after referring to the reports of the experts. Please tell us what are your recommendations which have not been taken into consideration.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that it was not suggesting environmental safeguards should be diluted. Rather, the Court stressed that environmental compliance and precautionary principles must continue to guide implementation of such projects.
“We are at the same time equally critical, no question of compromising about it,” the CJI observed, adding that courts appreciate when individuals approach authorities to ensure that these are the precautions required to be taken.
The Court repeatedly encouraged constructive engagement with expert bodies instead of seeking to completely halt projects through litigation. Addressing the petitioner, who argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report ignored crucial ecological concerns, including fisheries and marine biodiversity, the Bench said:
“You could go to some government agencies. You could go to the environmental authorities to point out deficiencies in the report. Make sure that when you execute the project, these things are also taken care of.”
During arguments concerning the ecological sensitivity of the project area, the petitioner pointed to references regarding olive ridley turtles, marine mammals and fisheries. The Court, however, distinguished between the occasional or transient movement of species and the existence of ecologically sensitive nesting or breeding zones.
“A marine mammal would naturally… there can be transient movement even of a humpback whale. Will you say that the humpback whale nests there?” the Court asked.
Drawing a broader environmental analogy, the Bench referred to the decline of river dolphins near Kolkata and observed that ecological changes and species movement patterns require nuanced scientific assessment rather than broad assumptions. The Court also expressed reservations about litigation that seeks to completely obstruct the implementation of projects after environmental clearances have been granted. At the same time, the Court recognised that environmental apprehensions may at times be genuine and observed that citizens remain entitled to raise concerns regarding ecological impact.
The Court noted that the NGT, by its impugned order, had dismissed the appeal after elaborately relying upon the EIA report, in which various environmental aspects had been examined by a team of experts. The appellant, however, alleged that despite relying on the EIA report while dismissing the appeal, the NGT failed to consider several crucial concerns raised by them, including the impact on fisheries and biodiversity, the ecological sensitivity of the region, the presence and movement of marine species such as olive ridley turtles and marine mammals, deficiencies in dredging impact assessment, and the fact that an earlier environmental clearance granted in 2012 remained substantially unimplemented for over 13 years before fresh expansion approval was granted.
The Court declined to interfere with the NGT’s order but permitted the petitioner to seek a review on specific environmental concerns allegedly overlooked during appraisal.
“Though we are not inclined to agree with the appellant’s contention that the NGT has dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons, nevertheless we grant liberty to move a review application before the NGT, specifically raising the aforesaid grounds, specifically to point out as to whether or not the above introduced issues, based on his EIA report, have been mainly considered by the EIA report. We request the NGT to look into this aspect of the matter. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on that.”