Subscribe
- Latest Legal News
- News
- Dealstreet
- Viewpoint
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law School
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
This piece is a comprehensive reckoner on the important judgments and orders in the field of environmental law passed by the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the course of 2024.
Order dated January 2, 2024
The Supreme Court of India imposed a stay on the operation of two office memorandums dated July 7, 2021 and January 28 2022, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The interim order was passed in a public interest litigation filed by a non-governmental organisation Vanashakti,contending that Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for a project could only take place before the commencement of an activity and not thereafter. The applicant contended that the two office memorandums permitted the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance (EC) thereby allowing the projects to regularise the operations carried out by them without getting prior EC.
Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Order dated January 4, 2024
The Court expressed concern over the approach adopted by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) while dismissing an application alleging that a water body is sought to be filled. The applicant had placed on record certain photographs in support of the complaint. However, NGT had dismissed the application without holding any inquiry. While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court stated that when a citizen approaches NGT with a grievance, a different approach by NGT is contemplated and it should not apply the strict yardsticks of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the pleadings of the parties. Supreme Court directed NGT to hold an inquiry in accordance with the law and to decide the original application filed by the appellant afresh as NGT has not discharged its duty in accordance with the law.
Container Corporation of India Ltd v. Ajay Khera and Ors
Order dated January 11, 2024
The Supreme Court directed the Central government to formulate a policy on phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with Bharat Stage – VI vehicles within a period of six months. The applicant before NGT had raised the issue of pollution being caused by the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad, Delhi. The applicant before NGT had alleged that due to the inflow of many trucks/trailers to ICD, air pollution in Delhi National Capital Region has substantially increased owing to the emissions from trucks/trailers. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to file a report on the issues raised in the appeal along with its recommendations. Based on the recommendations of EPCA, the Supreme Court issued direction to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to continue the process of exploring the possibility of finding better sources, including compressed natural gas/hybrid/electric, for the use of heavy-duty vehicles.
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated January 31, 2024
The judgment was passed in the context of institutionalisation and reconstitution of the CEC. The Supreme Court found that through the notification dated September 5, 2023, concerns regarding the functioning of the CEC as an ad hoc body and the need for its institutionalisation as a permanent body have been addressed. The said notification provides for the constitution of the CEC, its powers, functions, mandate, members, method of appointment, terms of service and monitoring of its functioning. The importance of ensuring the effective functioning of the environmental bodies was emphasised and reiterated by Supreme Court. It noted that the role of the constitutional courts is also to monitor the proper institutionalisation of environmental regulatory bodies and authorities. It also listed the institutional features pertaining to the functioning of the bodies, authorities, regulators and executive offices entrusted with environmental duties, in furtherance of the principles of environmental rule of law.
Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd.) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated February 19, 2024
The order was passed in a writ petition contending that the expansive definition of ‘forest’ provided in the Godavarman judgment has been narrowed down as per Section 1A inserted through the Forest Amendment Act. According to the new definition, a land must be either notified as a forest or specifically recorded as a forest in government records to qualify as a ‘forest’. Whereas, as per the Godavarman Judgment, the term ‘forest’ must be understood in terms of the dictionary meaning. MoEFCC was directed to ensure that all states and union territories provide a comprehensive record of lands which have been identified as forests by the expert committees constituted by the respective states and union territories in pursuance of the directions in the Godavarman judgment. All states and union territories were also directed to forward the reports of their respective expert committees by March 31, 2024. MoEFCC was directed to digitise and maintain these records and make it available on the official website by April 15, 2024.
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda
Order dated June 26, 2024
The direction was passed while hearing the contempt case regarding the felling of a large number of trees by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in alleged violation of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. Earlier, the Court had directed DDA to provide records relating to the site visit of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi and the alleged directions issued by the LG Delhi for felling of trees. Upon the request of DDA seeking further time to produce the records, the Court on June 26 expressed its dissatisfaction. It directed the Environment and Forest Department, Delhi to submit an affidavit detailing why it had not taken any action despite knowing about serious violations by DDA.
Further, the Court directed the department to confirm if the Tree Authority constituted under the Delhi Trees Act meets quarterly as required by the law and if it has adequate infrastructure. Immediate action was also mandated for the seizure of felled trees and the DDA was instructed to promptly locate and communicate the whereabouts of felled trees to the Tree Authority within a week and to cooperate fully in the seizure process. The Tree Authority was also required to file an affidavit confirming compliance with the directives. Emphasising the urgency of action and the need for establishment of a continuous, prompt and effective vigil mechanism to keep a check on activities of illegal felling or damaging of trees, the Court has directed the Delhi government to immediately create the necessary infrastructure, with the inclusion of modern technology for vigilance.
Gene Campaign and Anr v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated July 23, 2024
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol delivered a split decision in a batch of petitions challenging the trials and environmental release of genetically modified mustard and the rules governing them. The petitions sought directions to the Central government to ensure that the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989 (GEO Rules) should be brought in consonance with the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought directions to restrain the use of gene modification technology without having requisite safeguards and regulatory regimes in place. Another petition challenged the procedure adopted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for appraisal of Dhara Mustard Hybrid - 11 (DMH-11). It also alleged that the Assessment of Food/Feed and Environmental Safety (AFES) Report considered by GEAC was inadequate.
The judgment by Justice Nagarathna held that approval for environmental release of transgenic DMH - 11 was liable to be quashed and directed the GEAC to undertake a consultation with relevant stakeholders to decide whether transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 is a Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crop or not. Thereafter, a policy decision should be taken afresh on environmental release of the same. Justice Nagarathna also passed a general direction that the GEAC should be reformed to include experts from the field of agriculture, biotechnology, ethics, sociology, health and environment.
Justice Karol in his judgment opined that the ban on HT crops would be unwarranted as it should be a policy decision. The challenge to the constitutionality of the GEO Rules was also rejected. The judgment held that the decision of GEAC to grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of mind or any other principle of law. The Bench passed the common judgment that the judicial review of decision taken by bodies concerned in the matter of genetically modified organisms is permissible and directed the Central government to consult stakeholders in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, state governments, representatives of farmers, etc for evolving a national policy on genetically modified crops.
In view of the difference of opinion on the decision of GEAC granting conditional approval for environmental release of DMH – 11, the matter will be referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration of the matter before an appropriate bench.
P Arun Prasad and Another v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated August 12, 2024
The direction was passed by NGT while considering an application filed by the CECB seeking an extension of time to comply with an earlier order passed by NGT. NGT had directed CECB to make its website user-friendly and provide public access to industry-related information. NGT concluded that CECB had adopted an uncooperative attitude despite the urgency of the matter, which related to environmental monitoring. It opined that the Chairman and Member Secretary had committed an offence by failing to comply with its orders and directed the initiation of penal action. However, the Supreme Court while considering the appeal filed by the CECB officers, observed that although there was a delay, it did not amount to willful negligence or abject dereliction of duty. Noting that CECB is now compliant with NGT’s directions, Supreme Court set aside the order passed by NGT.
Order dated August 27, 2024
The Court directed the governments of Rajasthan, Punjab, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to fill the vacancies in their respective State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) by April 30, 2025. It was considering the issue of a substantial number of vacant posts in these five states falling within the National Capital Region (NCR). It observed that the SPCBs have become ineffective due to the large number of vacant posts. Noting that the issue of stubble burning and pollution in NCR would arise in the ensuing winters, it directed all the states to urgently undertake recruitment for these important posts through direct recruitment within two months.
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors (In Re: Taj Trapezium Zone)
Order dated September 6, 2024
National Environmental Engineering Research of India (NEERI) has been directed to consult experts from the Energy and Wetlands Research Group, Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Environmental Science and Engineering Department, IIT Bombay, Environment Safeguards Specialist, IIT Bombay, Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research while undertaking the task.
Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai and Ors v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS and Ors
Judgment dated September 11, 2024
The Court passed the order while considering an appeal arising out of the order passed by NGT. NGT had held that it could not consider an execution application filed against the officers of the government department because they were not impleaded in their personal capacity in the original application. The applicant before NGT challenged the order of NGT before Supreme Court on the ground that by legal fiction under Section 28 (1) of the NGT Act, 2010, the head of the government department will be deemed guilty of failure and liable to be proceeded against when the government department has failed to comply with the directions of NGT. The Court observed that NGT could not have interfered at the stage of issuing notice and should have allowed the respondents to raise all possible defences including the defence that they were not responsible for complying with the order sought to be implemented.
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated October 16, 2024.
The order was passed in a contempt petition filed against the officials of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for felling trees despite the dismissal of their application seeking permission before Supreme Court. The Chairperson was directed to furnish information regarding the steps taken for identification of officers responsible for suppression of facts before Supreme Court in the earlier responses filed by DDA. Additionally, the Chairperson was asked to clarify whether any disciplinary proceedings or criminal action have been instituted against the responsible officers.
Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors
Judgment dated November 27, 2024
The Court quashed two orders passed by NGT dated in August and November 2022, through which it had imposed penalties on Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited for alleged environmental violations. It found that NGT’s findings of non-compliance were not supported by evidence and were contrary to the reports of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and NEERI. These reports confirmed appellant’s compliance with environmental norms.
The Court criticised NGT for adopting an arbitrary methodology in imposing a penalty of ₹25 crore, which was calculated based on the appellant’s revenue ranging between ₹100-500 crore as found in the public domain. The Court noted that such a method lacked legal justification and violated principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not accorded an opportunity to be heard before the imposition of penalties. It held that any future allegations of non-compliance must be adjudicated in adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court remands Grasim Industries cases to NGT for fresh consideration due to procedural lapses
Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Judgement dated November 27, 2024
NGT had imposed penalties of ₹7.5 crore in one case and ₹8.2 crore and ₹7.56 crore in another for alleged environmental violations, including failure to install a flow meter for emissions and issues related to hazardous by-products. The Supreme Court found that Grasim was neither impleaded as a party in NGT proceedings nor given an opportunity to be heard. It noted that the decisions were based solely on the reports of a Joint Committee appointed by the NGT and devoid of any independent judicial analysis. The Court observed that such an approach contravened established principles of natural justice. It thys remanded the matters to NGT for fresh consideration, directing that Grasim must be impleaded as a respondent in any further proceedings.
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors
Order dated November 29, 2024
The provisions in question provide the penalty for felling or removing trees in violation of the provisions of the Act and the power for compounding of such an offence. The order was passed based on the observations of the Supreme Court that the penalty provided under the statute is inadequate and is not sufficient to deter the persons from illegal felling of trees. It was also noted that the amount based on which the offence could be compounded under Section 15 was too low.
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated December 19, 2024
The Supreme Court expressed concern over non-compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 by the Delhi government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). It granted the Delhi government time to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing compliance with specific provisions and timelines prescribed under the 2016 Rules. The Court noted that Delhi generates 11,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste daily, with a processing gap of 3,000 tonnes per day. It noted that this gap in processing capacity results in large-scale illegal dumping, posing significant environmental and public health risks. It also highlighted that such a situation violates the fundamental right of citizens to live in a pollution-free environment. It further urged authorities to adopt innovative measures to address the shortfall and warned that unchecked waste generation could necessitate a review of the development activities in the city.
Supreme Court also addressed the issue of 3,800 (three thousand eight hundred) tonnes of solid waste being dumped daily at the Ghazipur and Bhalsawa sites, leading to environmental degradation and frequent fires. Delhi Government was directed to submit an affidavit by 15 January 2025, detailing measures implemented to prevent fires at these dumping sites and their adverse environmental effects. This affidavit must include data on fire incidents during 2024 and preventive actions taken. Delhi Government and MCD were directed to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing all aspects of compliance with the 2016 Rules.
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors (In Re: Ban on the use of firecrackers)
Order dated December 19, 2024
The Supreme Court considered the Delhi government’s order dated December 19, 2024, issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA), imposing a year-round ban on the manufacture, storage, sale (including online delivery) and use of firecrackers across the National Capital Territory. It noted that the ban’s effectiveness hinges on similar restrictions being enforced in other states within the NCR. The Court observed that Rajasthan has already implemented a similar ban in the areas falling within the NCR. To ensure uniformity and efficacy, the Court directed the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to impose a similar ban till January 17, 2025 in their respective NCR regions.
Mohammed Manath Ibrahim v. Thrikkakara Municipality
Order dated January 12, 2024
The High Court of Kerala held that the municipality has the primary responsibility to deal with the municipal waste even if it was illegally dumped on a private property. The petitioner had sought removal of a large amount of waste illegally dumped on the property belonging to Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL). KMRL submitted that they were ready to construct a fence around the plot of land to prevent the dumping of waste. The Thrikkakara Municipality claimed that the local body has no responsibility for removing the waste since the land belonged to KMRL.
The High Court rejected the submission and held that it is the primary duty of the Thrikkakara Municipality to deal with municipal waste. The fact that such municipal waste has been illegally dumped on private property cannot absolve it from the liability of removing the waste for proper treatment as is done in the case of other municipal waste being collected and processed by them. The High Court disposed of the petition with the directions to KMRL to take steps to either fence or construct a compound wall around the property in question to prevent illegal dumping of waste.
People United for better living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Order dated June 20, 2024
The petitioners alleged that the construction of metro station will lead to the destruction of the Kolkata Maidan, which serves as a critical carbon sink and ground water recharger. However, the High Court opined that the petition was based primarily on newspaper reports and public concerns about the ecological impact of the construction and specifically the felling of hundreds of trees. The High Court considered all the permissions obtained by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited and after being convinced that the requisite permissions have been obtained, it dismissed the petition.
Delhi Medical Association and Anr v. Government NCT of Delhi and Ors
Order dated July 3, 2024
The High Court of Delhi directed the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Development Authority to constitute a Joint Committee for inspection of all nursing homes that are members of the Delhi Medical Association. The direction was passed by the High Court while considering a writ petition filed by the Delhi Medical Association challenging a communication to all private hospitals and nursing homes to undertake audit of fire safety measures employed by it. The petition claimed that the nursing homes are erroneously considered ‘institutional buildings’ and being asked to take fire safety clearance. The High Court observed that its immediate priority is to safeguard public safety and ensure that basic fire safety equipment is installed at the premises of private nursing homes.
Order dated July 15, 2024
The directions were passed in a special sitting of the Court based on reports of the death of a worker engaged in the cleaning of Aamayizhanjan canal near the Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station. The High Court, while considering the submissions made by various departments, observed that the canal has become a cesspool of plastic which is clogging near the metal gratings and preventing the flow of drain water. It also observed that there are large quantities of legacy waste in the area. It directed the authorities to submit a plan of action to be adopted for clearing the legacy waste from within and outside the railway premises along with the timelines for completion of the plan.
Judgment dated August 30, 2024
The petitioners challenged the Office Memorandum (OM) dated February 19, 2021, which outlined the procedure for cases where prior Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance had not been obtained before undertaking activities. The OM dated July 7, 2021, which prescribed the procedure for considering EC applications where activities/construction had already started without EC, was also challenged. The Madras High Court noted that the core issue was whether EC, which is mandatory for certain projects/activities, could be granted ex-post facto (after the project has commenced).
The Court observed that the Central government has the authority to issue notifications under specific sections of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. However, it emphasised that firstly, such notification should be for environment protection. Secondly, the EIA Notification, 2006 and CRZ Notification, 2011 mandate ‘prior EC’ and the impugned OMs proceeded on the basis that the project proponents commence work without EC which is clearly a violation/breach and it provides for certain standard operating procedures and ground for ex post facto EC. Thirdly, a slew of instruments were issued making ex post facto the norm and prior clearance an exception while Supreme Court has held that ex post facto clearance should be resorted to as an exception.
Order dated October 24, 2024.
The High Court of Rajasthan initiated suo motu proceedings based on a news article published in ‘Rajasthan Patrika’. The article highlights that despite numerous directions issued by the courts and NGT, several rivers along with various other water bodies across the State are facing severe encroachment, jeopardising the well-being of all living organisms and environment. The High Court observed that such news indicated serious failure of the Central and state governments, particularly MoEFCC and Ministry of Jal Shakti, in protecting rivers from illegal encroachments. It also noted that the draft River Conservation Zone (Regulation of Harmful Activities) Rules, 2012 and the notifications regarding river conservation zone and river regulation zone in 2015 remain unimplemented till date. The High Court issued show cause notice on why the directions for constituting committees at state level, divisional level and district level should not be issued. It also proposed the demolition of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments on the rivers, flood plains and catchment areas of all rivers, water bodies, water courses and water channels.
Naresh Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors
Order dated January 15, 2024
NGT imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on Delhi’s Public Welfare Department (PWD) and the Delhi government for their failure in filing a response in the matter of the alleged environmental violation at the Delhi Chief Minister’s official residence. It also imposed costs of ₹15,000 on the Forest Department for filing an incomplete report. The issue involved violation of environmental norms in the construction at 6, Flag Staff Road and 45-47 Rajpur Road, New Delhi by PWD, Delhi. It also noted that previously, the PWD had requested time to file documents relating to permission and compulsory plantation, but no such document was filed.
Kanhai Ram Patel & Ors v. Union of India
Order dated January 15, 2024
NGT observed that the EC granted stood vitiated in law because it had not conducted public consultation, there was non-consideration of Indian Council of Medical Research report, hydrological study and carrying capacity. It noted that the carrying capacity study by the concerned authority has not been conducted and this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the competent authority while granting the impugned EC. NGT, while noting the same, quashed the EC granted to MSPGCL for mining at Gare Palma, Sector-II, coal mine project. It also directed MoEFCC to re-examine the matter from the stage of conducting public consultation.
Prem Mohan Gaur v. National Highway Authority of India and Ors
Order dated February 13, 2024
NGT was considering an original application filed against NHAI for alleged encroachment, covering and construction over a pond/water body and other alleged violations at village Kiranj, District Nuh, State of Haryana. It also stated that in case NHAI fails to deposit the environmental compensation, the damaged pond, gochar/grazing land and nallahs should be restored to their original form, shape, size and composition by taking such steps as required under the law. NGT also noted that if the environmental compensation is deposited by NHAI, the same shall be appropriated for restoration/rejuvenation of the environment and the plan for restoration/ rejuvenation shall be prepared by the joint committee constituted by NGT. It also directed that the plan shall be prepared within three months after deposit of environmental compensation and the amount shall be utilized within six months thereafter.
Order dated June 13, 2024.
The news report highlighted the deaths of seven flamingos, which were attributed to the construction activities led by the City and Industrial Development Corporation which blocked the lakes and water inlets. According to the report, the blockage caused stagnant water in the lake making it unsuitable for flamingos. Furthermore, ‘light pollution’ from new LED installations was also cited as a contributing factor as it lead to disorientation in the birds, causing them to crash into objects thereby sustaining fatal injuries. NGT noted that these are significant issues of non- compliance with the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In addition to the above, it also noted that despite the previous orders mandating efforts to be undertaken for preservation of the DPS lake, there is a drastic reduction in the migratory bird population.
Order dated July 2, 2024.
The study stated that the researchers analysed 101 electric, gas and hybrid cars with model years between 2015 and 2022 and found that the cabin air in 99% of these cars contained a flame retardant called Tris (1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP). The news article stated that TCIPP is being investigated by the United States National Toxicology Program as a potential carcinogen. The research further showed that most cars have 2 (two) more flame retardants namely, tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCIPP) and tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) which are also considered carcinogenic. The news item alleged that the source of these compounds is seat foam, which is added with chemicals to meet an ‘outdated’ flammability standard with no proven fire safety benefit. Upon observing that the issue indicated violation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the EPA, NGT impleaded the Central Pollution Control Board, MoEFCC, Indian Council of Medical Research and Ministry of Heavy Industries to file their responses on the issue.
Captain (Retd.) C Krishnanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Order dated July 22, 2024.
NGT disposed of an application which was registered based on a letter petition on the ground that the complainant was represented by a counsel. It observed that the complainant had the resources to approach NGT by filing an application as per the rules and procedures prescribed under the NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. NGT noted that the complainant claimed to be a Captain and was represented through a counsel and therefore had the resources to approach NGT in the proper way.
Order dated September 20, 2024.
NGT directed CPCB to file a report on the issue of incomplete combustion in vehicles, leading to air pollution. The case was registered suo motu based on a news article referring to a study claiming that incomplete combustion of various fuels in vehicles contributed significantly to poor air quality. The study found that older, poorly maintained vehicles and ones lying idle can cause incomplete combustion, leading to greater air pollution. NGT issued the direction upon consideration of CPCB’s previous report and noting that it did not address the main issue of incomplete combustion in the vehicles.
Tsunami on Roads through Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways & Ors
Order dated September 20, 2024
NGT directed the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, MoEFCC and Ministry of Power to file responses to a plea seeking implementation of star rating system for all passenger vehicles based on fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions. The application claimed that such star rating systems of vehicles has already been introduced in most of the developed countries including Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore. The application further claims that vehicular pollution is the most important contributor in air pollution as it is responsible for 40% of such air pollution.
NGT seeks response from authorities on news article claiming presence of heavy metals in PM 2.5 in East Delhi
Order dated October 16, 2024.
The application was registered based on a newspaper article about a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi revealing severe heavy metal pollution in East Delhi’s air, raising significant health concerns. As per the news item, the study detected alarming levels of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and nickel in the air. In East Delhi district, chromium, copper, zinc, molybdenum and lead were the major heavy metals found in PM2.5. The news item states that the study formulated the heavy metal exposure index in East Delhi (part of a mega city), Jaisalmer (desert), Ludhiana (industrial city), Visakhapatnam (coastal), Panchkula and Patiala. The news item claims that the primary sources of these pollutants include industrial emissions, vehicular exhaust and construction activities. Furthermore, the presence of heavy metals poses serious health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. NGT impleaded the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, Punjab Pollution Control Board, CPCB, MoEFCC, District Magistrate, East Delhi and District Magistrate, Ludhiana and directed them to file responses to the issues raised in the article.
Noble M Paikada v. Union of India and Ors
Judgment dated October 22, 2024.
NGT has directed that the ECs granted at the district level by District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (DEIAAs) should be reappraised by the SEIAA at the state level. The direction was passed in an application challenging the validity of OMs which extended the validity of the ECs granted by DEIAA. The applicant argued that these OMs contradicted the judgments of the Supreme Court and the NGT. NGT considered the legal development of the amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, in 2016 which allowed DEIAAs to grant ECs for mining projects with area less than 25 ha (twenty-five hectares) without public consultation. This was deemed inconsistent with the judgments of the Supreme Court, which mandated stricter environmental assessments for mining activities. NGT had previously directed that such procedures be aligned with the directions of the Supreme Court and all ECs.
Kamlesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Saurabh Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors
Order dated December 23, 2024
NGT, while considering the issue of quality of water flowing in the river Ganga in Prayagraj and the requirement of fresh water for the forthcoming Kumbh Mela, directed the CPCB and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) to increase monitoring points and frequency of monitoring on river Ganga and Yamuna. The CPCB and UPPCB were also directed to take water samples from river Ganga and Yamuna from these points at least twice a week at regular intervals and display the analysis report on their websites.
Panchtatva Foundation v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change &; Ors
Order dated December 23, 2024.
NGT has issued notice in a plea raising the issue of adverse impact of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on flora and fauna and human beings. The applicant claims that ALAN disrupts natural biological processes, adversely affecting the human circadian rhythms, nocturnal wildlife behaviour, plant physiology and migratory species.
Nawneet Vibhaw and Prannoy Joe Sebastian are from Panchtattva Advocates, a specialised environmental law firm.
For any further information please connect at nv@ptalaw.in