LexTHE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION versus NAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 516 : 2025 INSC 347 The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5781-5782 of 2022) 17 March 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of judgment passed by the National Green Tribunal giving directions to the appellant-Foundation as regards the construction of roads in Auroville Township. Headnotes† National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss.14, 15, Schedule I – Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal – Substantial question relating to environment – Auroville Township Project – Application by respondent nos.1 and 2 before the National Green Tribunal, with regard to cutting of large number of trees by the appellant Foundation, alleging that appellant was focusing on the manifestation of the roads mentioned in the Master Plan, the Crown Road, a road encircling the centre of the Township, and the outer ring road, and was intending to distract Darkali Forest by using huge machineries causing deterioration to the environment; that the lands were covered under the deemed forest and were entitled to the protection – Tribunal held that it would not come under the definition of “Forest” for the purposes of obtaining clearance; it applied the “Precautionary Principle”, and held that any further activity to be done by the appellant, could be permitted to be carried out only after obtaining necessary prior environmental clearance and also appointed a Joint Committee to inspect the area in question and ascertain whether any modification could be made in the width of the road, and further directed the appellant to prepare a proper Township plan – Correctness: Held: For the exercise of jurisdiction by the tribunal u/s.14, it has to be shown that a substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is involved and such questions arise out of the implementation * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 517 The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. of the enactments specified in Schedule I – Every question or dispute raised by an applicant before the tribunal pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a substantial question – Tribunal completely misdirected itself by entering into the restricted domain of judicial review under the guise of applying “Precautionary Principle” in extraordinary circumstances, and in interfering with the implementation of Master Plan which was already approved by the competent Authority way back in the year 2001 and had attained a statutory force and a finality – Construction of roads as mentioned in the said approved Master Plan including the Crown Road, being on the verge of completion, except few patches, which could not be completed because of the obstructions caused by the disgruntled residents – Tribunal misdirected itself by directing the appellant to prepare a proper Township Plan – Directions by tribunal clearly fall outside the purview of its jurisdiction particularly when there was no substantial question relating to the environment was shown to have arisen in implementation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the Act, nor violation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule-I was alleged – Thus, the tribunal committed gross error in assuming the jurisdiction and giving directions untenable in law – Impugned orders passed by the tribunal quashed and set aside. [Paras 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19] Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19, 21 – Right to clean environment vis-à-vis right to development: Held: Though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” are part of the environmental law of the country, it is equally true that while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right under Arts.14 and 21, but the right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority under fundamental rights particularly u/Arts.14, 19 and 21 – There is a need for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment. [Para 17] Case Law Cited T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 982 : (1997) 2 SCC 267; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development [2020] 12 SCR 1139 : (2020) 9 SCC 781; H.P. Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority v. Ce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.