SC reiterates principles on jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal, stresses need for sustainable development

The Supreme Court of India in Auroville Foundation v NK Mody & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 557 overturned a decision of the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone Bench, Chennai that prohibited construction in Auroville due to the absence of prior Environmental Clearance.

This case concerns Auroville, a township in Tamil Nadu with some parts lying in the Union Territory of Puducherry, envisioned by Mirra Alfassa (known as the Mother), a spiritual collaborator of Sri Aurobindo. The township was designed as a universal city and was a project of the Sri Aurobindo Society, which was formerly inaugurated in 1968 by Mother. The original Master Plan conceptualised it to be constructed in a Galaxy shape, which was meant to accommodate 50,000 residents. After “Mother” passed away in 1973, the Central Government received many complaints regarding the mismanagement of the Sri Aurobindo Society and thereafter issued a Presidential Ordinance called the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980, later replaced by the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 and the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988, whereunder the Auroville Foundation was constituted as a statutory body with members of the Governing Board nominated by the Central government.

The original Master Plan of Auroville was revised in 1972 and then again in 1999 (Master Plan), which was approved by the competent authority, the Town and Country Planning Organisation in 2001 under the Model Town and Country Planning Act. This master plan was notified and published in the Official Gazette in 2010 and included roads (which included a road project knows as the “Crown Road” as an integral part of the plan), residential areas, green zones and other infrastructure. More than 2000 structures in Auroville were built on the basis of the approved plan since 2001.

In 2021, two residents of Auroville filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) alleging that trees were cut during the construction of roads in Auroville, which was a violation of forest laws as the area of Auroville was deemed forest land protected under forest conservation laws. The residents relied on TN Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India, [(1997) 2 SCC 267] in their plea.

The Auroville Foundation submitted that the area of Auroville was neither a forest nor a deemed forest protected under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It was further submitted that the Master Plan had been approved by the competent authorities and that the project had been planned and started long before the enactment of environment laws such as the EIA Notification 2006.

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) submitted that the requirement of prior Environmental Clearance for certain construction and developmental activities was incorporated in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 1994 (later superseded EIA Notification 2006) vide an amendment notification in 2004. It was also submitted that the Auroville Township Project was under construction much before the EIA Notification 1994, and a substantial part of the construction for the project was completed far back in 2001. Therefore, it could not have been considered to be a new project under the amendment notification of 2004, the MoEF&CC said.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the NGT held that the case involved a substantial question of alleged violation of environmental laws, and so the application was maintainable. The Tribunal, in a judgment dated 28 April 2022, held that the project did not fall under the exempted category under the EIA Notification. Therefore, any further construction activity carried out by the Foundation required Environmental Clearance EC, the NGT said. The NGT also directed the Foundation to prepare a proper township plan and apply for Environmental Clearance. The NGT permitted the Foundation to complete construction of the Crown Road strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee appointed by it.

The Foundation challenged NGT’s judgment before the Supreme Court.

Section 14 read with Section 2(1)(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the legislations listed in Schedule I of the Act.

The Supreme Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, [(2020) 9 SCC 781] and followed the view of a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in HP Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority Vs. Central Empowered Committee, [(2021) 4 SCC 309] that an application filed before the Tribunal should raise a substantial environmental question and specifically allege violation of any of the laws or enactments listed in the Schedule to the NGT Act.

The Court noted that in the present case, the applicants had raised issues pertaining to and cutting of trees in an area which was a deemed forest. However, the NGT came to a finding that the area of Auroville was not a forest or a deemed forest and hence there was no violation of forest laws. The Court held that the Tribunal had entered into the restricted domain of judicial review by interfering in the implementation of the Master Plan which was approved by the competent authority in 2001 itself and attained statutory force and finality. The Court noted that the Tribunal, even after holding that the area did not constitute a ‘deemed forest’, appointed a joint committee to look into the matter applying the precautionary principle.  The Court, therefore, held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering in the present matter where no substantial question relating to the environment or any issue pertaining to a violation of any of the specified statutes in the Schedule to the NGT Ac had been raised. The Court also noted that the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 was a special Act which overrode the provisions of the NGT Act.

Most pertinently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the concept of Sustainable Development and reiterated that the view that development and environment protection are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.

Therefore, the Court held that NGT cannot intervene in every development project unless there is a clear environmental law violation, and it must stay within the boundaries of the NGT Act. It is clear that the invocation of the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” which are often relied upon by the NGT while taking cognizance of environmental law violations, must be balanced with the right to development through industrialisation.

About the authors: Vanita Bhargava is a Partner, Nandita Chauhan is a Principal Associate and Tijil Thakur is an Associate at Khaitan & Co.

Views expressed are personal.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.