NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for thousands of stalled construction projects—spanning housing, industrial sheds, educational institutions, and hostels—by ruling that projects with a built-up area between 20,000 and 150,000 square metres do not require environmental clearance from the Centre. Instead, approval from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) will suffice.
The court’s decision revives numerous development activities across the country that were halted following an interim stay granted on February 24. That stay had paused the Centre’s January 29 notification easing environmental clearance norms, after NGO Vanashakti challenged the move, alleging it weakened protections for nature and forests.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran upheld the Environment Ministry’s January notification, affirming that the Centre’s environmental clearance is not mandatory for mid-sized construction projects falling within the specified size range.
However, the court struck down the part of the notification that granted complete exemption from environmental scrutiny to certain categories—specifically industrial sheds, schools, colleges, universities, and hostels. The bench clarified that while these do not require central clearance, they must still obtain approval from the SEIAA.
Development and Environment Must Coexist, Says SC
Quoting the Centre’s argument, the court noted that the Union government lacks the resources to scrutinize all such projects nationwide and that the state-level authorities possess adequate expertise. “No country can progress without development,” the bench observed, adding, “The duty to protect the environment and ecology is paramount, but development activities cannot be stalled altogether.”
The ruling also resolved a jurisdictional ambiguity regarding projects in ecologically sensitive areas, wildlife zones, critically/severely polluted areas (CPA/SPA), and those near inter-state boundaries. The bench upheld the provision allowing states to grant clearances even for these sensitive zones.
Legal Perspectives
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Godrej Properties, argued that exemption from central clearance for such construction has existed since 2006, and that the January 29 notification introduced no radically new policy. Senior advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing CREDAI (Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India), echoed this position.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that the stay had caused massive project delays. In Maharashtra alone, over 700 applications are currently pending with the SEIAA due to the freeze.
When the court asked why SEIAA should not be allowed to approve such projects, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, counsel for Vanashakti, argued that large-scale constructions covering up to 1.5 lakh square metres should be subjected to stricter central-level scrutiny. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded by affirming that both central and state assessment authorities comprise equally qualified experts, and that the system maintains rigorous environmental oversight.
