Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

146 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SANGHAR ZUBER ISMAILversusMINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 43131 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Ministry of Environment granted environmental clearance on 5 January 2021 for expanding a refinery at Vadinar, Gujarat from 20 to 46 MMTPA. The appellant, Sanghar Zuber Ismail, challenged the clearance before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), alleging that the expansion would damage mangroves and marine biology. T

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 36831 August 1999Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained an application by the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) seeking directions for the supply of natural gas to industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) of Agra and for the laying of a pipeline through the old Yamuna Bridge. The Court noted that, under its earlier order dated 30‑12‑1996 in

IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2024 INSC 7831 January 2024Directions issued

The petition sought the institutionalisation and reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which had functioned as an ad‑hoc body since its Supreme Court‑ordered creation in 2002. The Court examined the need for a permanent statutory authority to monitor compliance with its environmental orders and consi

KRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA & ORS.versusBOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP & ORS.

2011 INSC 8531 January 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined contempt applications arising from the appellants' (Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors.) alleged violation of a conditional order permitting them to repair an old bund on land classified as CRZ‑1 and notified as a reserve forest. The Court found that the appellants, under the pretext of repa

K.M. CHINNAPPA IN T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 45230 October 2002IA disposed

The Supreme Court considered an interlocutory application filed by a wildlife trustee seeking an injunction to stop mining by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. in Kudremukh National Park, a area declared a national park under the Wildlife Protection Act. The company argued that its mining lease, expiring on 24‑07‑1999, could

RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

1988 INSC 25430 August 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra alleging illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie‑Dehradun belt that was harming the ecology and forest cover. Several expert committees (Bhargava, Working Group, Bandyopadhyay) classified the mines into categories A, B

VELLORE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. RAJEBDRANversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE DISTRICT & OTHERS

2025 INSC 13130 January 2025Disposed off

The case concerns the continued pollution of the Palar River in Vellore District by tannery effluents and the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA). The appellants, the Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee, challenged the Madras High Court's dismissal of writ petitions th

LAXMI NARAIN MODIversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 6930 January 2014Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition under Article 32 concerning the ineffective implementation of various animal welfare and environmental statutes, observed that many slaughter houses across states operated without licences or failed to comply with prescribed guidelines. The Court noted the absence of periodic

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 79629 November 2021Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's (DMRC) request to proceed with Phase‑IV of the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) through areas of the Delhi Ridge, South‑Central and Morphological Ridges, which are either notified forest or deemed forest lands. The petitioners argued that the project would c

GOPI AQUA FARMS AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

1997 INSC 57929 July 1997Dismissed

Gopi Aqua Farms and others filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a 19‑Feb‑1991 notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, after the Supreme Court had delivered its judgment in Jagannath v. Union of India. The petitioners argued that they were not parties to the earlier case, that the

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2016 INSC 45829 June 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) auctioned a 14.3‑hectare parcel of land for residential development on an "as is where is" basis, and Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. (the builder) paid the full bid amount and obtained possession. The development agreement required the builder to secure all statutory clearances

HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKARversusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 43429 March 2019Disposed off

The Union Government approved a greenfield international airport at Mopa, Goa, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) granted environmental clearance (EC) under the 2006 notification after the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) recommended it. Petitioners Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and the Federation of Rainbow W

AKHIL SHARAT GOSEWA SANGHversusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 18629 March 2006

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals challenging the grant of an industrial licence to Al‑Kabeer Exports Ltd. for a mechanised slaughter‑house in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners argued that the licence violated location prohibitions, environmental standards, the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of C

DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 61428 October 2020Disposed off

The appellants, holders of mining leases in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, sought extension of their leases for periods during which mining was prohibited by orders of the National Green Tribunal and subsequent state notifications. The State argued that neither the Uttar Pradesh Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 nor

FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVN. AND SOUND POLLUTIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 53728 October 2005Dismissed

The Forum, an environmental NGO, challenged the constitutional validity of sub‑rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which permits State Governments to relax night‑time loud‑speaker restrictions for up to fifteen days a year during cultural or religious festivals. The petition

VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 95228 August 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 filed by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum alleging that tanneries in five districts of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents, contaminating surface and groundwater, rendering 35,000 hectares of agricultural land unfit for cultivation and

IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 44228 April 2023Rejected

The Court was asked to clarify whether mining could be carried out beyond one kilometre from the boundary of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary when the proposed site lies within an Eco‑Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The petitioner argued that his mining lease, granted in 2005, was situated 2.26 km from the Radhanagari Wildl

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD .versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 41628 March 2008IA disposed

The Supreme Court examined the methodology for compensating diversion of forest land for non‑forest developmental projects under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It accepted the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) that the user agency must pay a Net Present Value (NPV) based on ecological clas

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 43926 September 2005Disposed off

The petition sought directions on whether user agencies diverting forest land for non‑forest purposes must compensate by paying the Net Present Value (NPV) of the lost forest benefits and what guidelines should govern NPV calculation. The Court examined the statutory framework of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, th

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 43026 April 2023Disposed off

The Union of India sought modification of the Supreme Court's directions dated 3 June 2022 that mandated a uniform one‑kilometre eco‑sensitive zone (ESZ) around every protected forest and prohibited any new permanent structures within such zones. The Court examined the practical difficulties of a uniform ESZ, the impac

P. NAVIN KUMAR AND ORS. ETCversusBOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

1999 INSC 20626 April 1999Disposed off

The Indian Heritage Society filed a public‑interest writ in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash permissions granted to the Bombay Municipal Corporation for constructing a new public toilet block near the Gateway of India and to demolish an existing block. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the facil

M.C.MEITTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 17026 March 2001Modified

The Supreme Court, hearing M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, examined the failure of the Delhi government and private bus operators to meet its earlier order (28 July 1998) that the entire city bus fleet be converted to CNG by 31 March 2001 and that no bus older than eight years operate on diesel after 1 April 2000. Applic

AKHIL BHARAT GOSEVA SANGH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 48925 October 1994Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the controversy surrounding the establishment of a mechanised slaughter house (Alkabeer Abattoir) at Rudraram, Medak district, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner organisations challenged the various permissions granted to the company, arguing that the slaughter house would deplete cattle wealth a

M/S PAHWA PLASTICS PVT. LTD. AND ANRversusDASTAK NGO AND ORS.

2022 INSC 34525 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and related firms, are MSME manufacturers of formaldehyde that obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board but did not secure prior environmental clearance (EC) as required by the 2006 EIA Notification. The Haryana governme

ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 98123 October 2018Directions issued

The petitioners, three infants represented by their fathers, sought a ban on firecrackers and related explosives in Delhi/NCR, alleging severe health hazards from air pollution, especially during Diwali. The Court examined the constitutional balance between the right to health (Art.21) and the commercial (Art.19(1)(g))

GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 54523 July 2024

The case concerns a challenge to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) approval dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 for the environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11. The petitioners argued that the approval suffered from procedural abnormalities, violated the righ

MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHANversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 63523 July 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public interest litigation filed by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan challenging the repeated issuance of Section 144 orders that effectively banned all public meetings, dharnas and peaceful protests in Central Delhi, and the National Green Tribunal's order banning demonstrations at Jantar Ma

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 30522 November 1991Disposed off

M.C. Mehta filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking directions for the government to promote environmental awareness. The Court examined whether it could order cinema halls, television, radio and educational institutions to disseminate environmental messages free of cost and make environmental studies comp

D. SWAMYversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ORS

2022 INSC 99822 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant, D. Swamy, challenged the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board's (KSPCB) consent to operate a Common Bio‑Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) on the ground that the facility lacked prior environmental clearance (EC) under the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification as amended. The

GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 65622 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of hotels and beach resorts in Goa, challenged demolition orders based on a series of government "guidelines" that prohibited construction within 500 metres of the high tide line. The Supreme Court examined whether these guidelines, issued between 1981 and 1986, qualified as law enforceable under

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1987 INSC 26122 September 1987Directions issued

M.C. Mehta, a social worker, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to stop the discharge of untreated tannery effluents into the River Ganga. The Court treated the case as a representative action, issuing notices to industrialists and municipal bodies and hearing evidence that many tanneries at Jajm

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RE:AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

1999 INSC 28522 July 1999Disposed off

The Airports Authority of India (AAI) sought permission to install hot‑mix plants within the vicinity of Indira Gandhi International Airport to resurface its runways, arguing that the work is of national importance and that distant plants would compromise the quality of the mix and airport security. Environmental group

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETCversusUDAY EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST AND ANR. ETC

2022 INSC 113121 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh granted provisional licences to 1,215 wood‑based industries (WBIs) after an e‑lottery, relying on a timber‑availability assessment by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) under the 2016 Wood‑Based Industries Guidelines. The licences were challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which

GOA FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 96221 April 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined public‑interest petitions concerning illegal iron‑ore mining in Goa, the validity of the Justice Shah Commission report, and the status of mining leases deemed to have arisen from pre‑1961 Portuguese concessions. It held that the Commission’s report could not be quashed for procedural lapses,

NOBLE M. PAIKADAversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 24121 March 2024Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a notification that exempted the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines from the requirement of prior environmental clearance. The petitioners argued that this blanket exemption was arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and was issue

M K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 28021 March 2024Directions issued

The petitioners sought a blanket prohibition on the installation of overhead transmission lines for solar power across roughly 99,000 square kilometres in Rajasthan and Gujarat, arguing that such lines threaten the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The Supreme Court had earlier ordered the conversion of

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 22721 February 2008Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained an interlocutory application concerning the constitution of a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. After considering submissions of the Solicitor General and an Amicus Curiae, the Court specified the composition of the CEC, naming a

KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 7921 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a group of environmental NGOs and affected residents, filed Original Application No. 81 of 2014 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking an end to the dumping of unsegregated municipal solid waste at an open landfill in Surat, Gujarat, and claiming compensation and restitution. The Western Zone

DR. BALRAM SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 95020 October 2023Directions issued

Dr. Balram Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the full implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. The Court examined whether the statutes requi

TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

2023 INSC 95220 October 2023Disposed off

The Tamil Nadu government issued a notification banning the manufacture, storage, sale and use of "one‑time use and throwaway plastics", which included reinforced paper cups (plastic‑coated teacups) and non‑woven polypropylene bags. The associations representing manufacturers of these products challenged the ban, alleg

ANIRUDH KUMARversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

2015 INSC 24220 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a resident of a building in Hauz Khas, challenged the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s issuance of a Regularisation Certificate that allowed the owners of a pathological laboratory to operate on multiple floors of the residential building. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it was a priv

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 151619 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta, examined the pollution caused by about 550 tanneries in the eastern fringe of Calcutta that were discharging untreated effluent into the River Ganga. The Court found that the tanneries were operating without consent under the

M.K. RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 25819 April 2021Directions issued

The petitioners, environmentalists, sought protection for the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, arguing that overhead power lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat cause fatal collisions. They requested that the states and the Union underground all future power lines in priority and potential habitats, convert exi

ESSAR OIL LTD.versusHALAR UTKARSH SAMITI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4019 January 2004Disposed off

Essar Oil Ltd., Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. and Gujarat Positra Port Co. sought to lay crude‑oil pipelines through the Jamnagar Marine National Park and Sanctuary. Public‑interest litigants challenged the Gujarat State Government's permission under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA) sections 29 and 35(6), argui

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 48918 October 2000Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition challenging the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. The petitioners argued that the environmental clearance granted in 1987 was invalid, that the height of the dam should be reduced, and that the relief and rehabilitation measures for d

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE

2003 INSC 49518 September 2003

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition under Article 32 filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of a Monitoring Committee, examined the Taj Heritage Corridor project undertaken near the Taj Mahal. The Court found that construction and river‑bed reclamation work had commenced without the mandatory clear

IN RE: NOISE POLLUTION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS FOR RESTRICTING USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS AND HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMSversus.

2005 INSC 29718 July 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by engineer Anil K. Mittal after a 13‑year‑old girl died because loudspeaker noise prevented her cries from being heard. The petition sought stringent enforcement of laws restricting loudspeakers, firecrackers, vehicular horns and other high‑volume sound system

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.versusMOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.

2024 INSC 31018 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Mohd. Abdul Qasim, claimed title over 106.34 acres of land that had been declared a reserved forest under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. He filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but the trial court and the High Court found that the land was forest land and that he had fail

SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS.

2013 INSC 26518 April 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined massive illegal iron‑ore mining in Karnataka’s Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga districts, which had caused severe forest loss and financial loss to the exchequer. A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and a Court‑appointed Joint Team surveyed 166 mining leases, categorising them as A, B or C ba

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 54318 April 1996

The Indian Council for Enviro‑Legal Action filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking enforcement of the 19 February 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification and challenging the validity of the 18 August 1994 amendment Notification. The petition alleged widespread non‑implementation of the 1991 Notifi

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 18818 March 2004Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether mining activities within a 5 km radius of the Delhi‑Haryana border and in the Aravalli hills cause environmental degradation and whether the earlier order of 6 May 2002 banning such mining should be varied. It held that the ban remains in force until a newly constituted Monitoring Com

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 70417 October 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest litigation concerning the proposed International Hotel Complex on 315 hectares in Vasant Kunj, Delhi. Earlier orders had declared 92 hectares of the site a "constraint area" and required environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 before any construc

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMR. SUDHAKAR HEGDE & ORS.

2020 INSC 30317 March 2020Disposed off

The Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) sought an environmental clearance (EC) for its Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project, which was later quashed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on the ground that the primary data used in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was over three years old and the Terms of

SECTOR 14 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.versusSTATE OF DELHI AND ORS.

1998 INSC 42816 November 1998Directions issued

The petitioners sought judicial intervention under Article 32 for the upgradation of sewerage management systems in the trans‑Yamuna area of Delhi and several sectors of NOIDA. The Supreme Court constituted a five‑member committee chaired by former Cabinet Secretary P.K. Kaul to examine the issues and submit a report.

VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 71816 May 2025

The petitioners challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change's 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum, which sought to grant ex post facto environmental clearances for projects that had commenced without prior clearance under the 2006 EIA Notification. The Court examined whether such retr

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2014 INSC 97516 May 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined illegal mining in Odisha where numerous leaseholders were operating without environmental or forest clearances and without renewal under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Central Empowered Committee identified 102 non‑working leases, 29 rejected or lapsed leas

THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATIONversusNAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS

2025 INSC 34716 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Auroville Foundation appealed against the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) directions that required it to prepare a new township plan and to obtain environmental clearance before completing the Crown Road and other roads in Auroville, alleging that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction. The respondents, residen

HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 4916 January 2020Disposed off

The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of the 40th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated 23 April 2019 be placed on record so that the Supreme Court's embargo on the environmental clearance (EC) for the Mopa greenfield airport could be lifted. The Court examined whether the EAC had adequ

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.versusJANTHAKAL ENTERPRISES AND ANR.

2011 INSC 29915 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Karnataka and other authorities against the Karnataka High Court’s order permitting Janthakal Enterprises to lift 1,17,800 tonnes of dumped ore. The Court held that the High Court had erred by disposing of a writ petition involving disputed factual issues in f

CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 88514 December 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna, a project to widen about 900 km of national highways in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand, which includes three strategic border roads. Environmental groups challenged the project before the National Green Tribunal, leading to the formation of a High Po

SURESH EST ATES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusMUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2007 INSC 130014 December 2007Case Partly allowed

The appellants, owners of an 8,983 sq.m. plot in Mumbai, sought permission to develop a luxury hotel with additional floor space index (FSI) under Rule 10(2) of the Development Control Rules, 1967. The land fell within Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) II as per the 19 February 1991 notification issued under the Environmen

N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2014 INSC 18214 September 2018IA disposed

The petitioners, led by MLA Bhupesh Baghel, sought interlocutory relief to stop non‑forest activities, including mining, by licensee Anil Lunia in Chhattisgarh forests, to initiate criminal prosecution, order a CBI enquiry, recover compensation and enforce afforestation. The Supreme Court constituted a Central Empowere

VILLIANUR IYARKKAI PADUKAPPU MAIYAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2009 INSC 81014 May 2009Dismissed

The Government of Pondicherry entered into a Build‑Operate‑Transfer concession with Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd (SPML) for the development of the minor Pondicherry Port, issuing a Letter of Intent and a concession agreement without prior Central Government approval. The appellants challenged the award on grounds o

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusV. B. R. MENON & OTHERS

2023 INSC 23114 March 2023Disposed off

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Chennai ordered the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to make it mandatory for all petroleum retail outlets to obtain Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) before setting up or operating, in addition to directing the installation of vapour recovery systems (VR

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 7514 March 1991Directions issued

M.C. Mehta, an advocate and chairman of the Environmental Protection Cell, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the closure of hazardous industries and regulation of vehicular and thermal power pollution in Delhi. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional mandate under Articles 48A and 51A, which impose a

ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD.versusANUJ JOSHI & ORS.

2013 INSC 53513 August 2013Disposed off

The Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) in Uttarakhand, originally cleared environmentally in 1985 and forest‑cleared in 1987, was later transferred to Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. (AHPCL) with a capacity increase to 330 MW. Petitioners challenged the validity of the clearances and sought a public hearing under th

M. C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 127813 April 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the implementation of the National Auto Fuel Policy and Bharat Stage‑IV (BS‑IV) emission norms, which required that from 1 April 2017 no vehicle non‑compliant with BS‑IV could be sold or registered in India. Automobile manufacturers intervened, arguing that they could continue to sell their e

HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2026 INSC 15913 February 2026

The appellants, a group of agriculturists and a nearby school, challenged a Change of Land Use (CLU) dated 13‑12‑2021 that permitted a cement‑related grinding unit on land classified as a rural agricultural zone in the Sangrur Master Plan. The High Court had upheld the CLU, relying on a subsequent approval recorded on

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 23713 February 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court entertained a social‑action writ filed by the Indian Council for Enviro‑Legal Action on behalf of villagers of Bichhri, who suffered severe water, soil and health damage due to untreated effluents and toxic sludge from private chemical industries. The petition sought directions against the Union of In

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1213 January 1998

In this public interest litigation, the Supreme Court was asked to clarify the status of an ad‑hoc committee headed by Justice R.K. Shukla that had been constituted under a previous order of the Court. The Court had subsequently created a permanent Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for the Nation

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusARAVALI KHANIJ UDYOG AND ANR.

2007 INSC 105312 October 2007Disposed off

The State of Haryana granted a 20‑year mining lease for silica sand to Aravali Khanij Udyog, which expired on 17 February 2000. The respondent claimed that due to departmental delays it was unable to mine for 850 days and sought an extension of the lease, which the State rejected; the Punjab & Haryana High Court set as

ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 89712 September 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard an application for modification of its November 2016 interim order that had suspended all licences for the sale of fireworks in the National Capital Region (NCR) after severe air‑pollution following Diwali 2016. Petitioners – fireworks manufacturers and suppliers – argued that a total ban was di

TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2016 INSC 51212 July 2016Disposed off

Talaulicar & Sons obtained environmental clearance on 25‑Nov‑2005 for expanding an iron‑ore mine, subject to a two‑year condition to submit a hydrogeological study. After submitting the report, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on 18‑Oct‑2007 deleted the two‑year limitation, effectively extending the clear

M.C. MEHTAversusKAMAL NATH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 32912 May 2000

The Supreme Court revisited a writ petition filed under Article 32 concerning the Mis Span Motel's pollution of the Beas River. The Court affirmed that damages can be awarded for environmental restoration and for victims under the polluter‑pays principle, but held that a pollution fine cannot be imposed without a crimi

JOLLY GEORGE AND ANR.versusGEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND ORS.

2023 INSC 36512 April 2023Disposed off

George Elias & Associates, engaged in road works, purchased Hot Mix Plants and obtained an Acknowledgement Certificate under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Act, 2019, as well as "Consent to Establish" from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Their application for a licence to in

SHEIKH IKRAM SHEIKH ISRAIL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 41312 April 2007Disposed off

The appellants, residents of Bhandara, manufacture brass utensils in their homes. The Superintendent of Police issued notices ordering them to cease operations, alleging that the mechanical processes generated noise pollution that disturbed nearby residents, teachers, and students. The High Court dismissed the appellan

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 18212 March 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court disposed of several interlocutory applications filed by various States seeking greater releases from the Ad‑hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA). The Court modified its earlier order of July 2009, directing the National CAMPA Advisory Council (NCAC) to issue gu

PRAGNESH SHAHversusDR. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

2022 INSC 4712 January 2022Dismissed

The appellant, owner of land in the Mount Abu Eco‑sensitive Zone (ESZ), challenged the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) order directing the State of Rajasthan to modify its Zonal Master Plan 2030 (ZMP 2030) to prohibit construction on his parcel. The NGT had relied on an Expert Committee report that deemed the land unsu

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 312 January 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public interest litigation filed by M.C. Mehta seeking relief from the severe pollution of the River Ganga at Kanpur, where 274.5 million litres of untreated sewage were being discharged daily. The petition raised the question of whether a non‑riparian citizen could sue for a public nuis

S. JAGANNATHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 146611 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The petition, filed under Article 32, sought to stop intensive and semi‑intensive prawn farming in ecologically fragile coastal zones, to prohibit use of waste/wet lands for such farms, and to constitute a national coastal management authority. The Court examined whether modern shrimp aquaculture constitutes a prohibit

M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 106011 October 2022Disposed off

M/S. M.S.P.L. Limited and its wholly‑owned subsidiary sought to set up an iron‑ore palletisation plant and an integrated steel plant in Karnataka. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, acquired 1,034 acres of land after obtaining approvals from the

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 46311 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the acquisition of about 105 acres of land in Manimajra, Chandigarh for the expansion of the Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park (Phase III). The acquisition was approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of the Union Territory based on reports of the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), which the petitioners

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 117911 October 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta under Article 32, examined the earlier order that prohibited any construction within a 5 km radius of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana and mandated conversion of open areas into green belts. Municipal authorities and developers sought

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 80411 September 2018IA disposed

The Supreme Court examined whether land in Kant Enclave, notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLP) on 18 August 1992, should be treated as forest land and thus subject to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It held that the notification unequivocally designates the area as forest, rendering any constructio

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusGANESH WOOD PRODUCTS AND ORS. ETC.

1995 INSC 55411 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Himachal Pradesh government's refusal to approve several katha‑manufacturing units after the Industrial Projects Approval and Review Authority (IPARA) had given provisional approvals. The Court held that IPARA’s approvals were merely administrative recommendations and did

SAMATHAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

[1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 30511 July 1997Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of mining leases granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh to non-tribal persons in scheduled areas, including reserved forests. The appellant, a society, challenged these leases as violating the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 19

UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS.versusSEASHELLS BEACH RESORT & ORS.

2012 INSC 23311 May 2012

The Union Territory of Lakshadweep appealed against a Kerala High Court order that allowed Seashells Beach Resort to operate despite lacking clearances under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules and land‑use diversion certificates. The High Court had granted interim relief on humanitarian grounds, ignoring alleged v

PIEDADE FILOMENA GONSALVESversusSTATE OF GOA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 16511 March 2004Dismissed

The appellant, Pied Ade Filomena Gonsalves, replaced a thatched-roof beach structure with a pucca building on her property in Colva, Goa, between 13-17 July 1994. Two writ petitions were filed: a neighbor’s petition (CWP 76/1995) seeking demolition of the new building, and the appellant’s petition (CWP 237/1999) seekin

OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.versusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 81610 December 2013Dismissed

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to convert a plot in a Special Industrial Zone to a residential‑commercial complex adjacent to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s (HPCL) refinery. HPCL objected, citing safety, security and health risks, and the Bombay High C

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERSversusPAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC.

2021 INSC 71310 November 2021Directions issued

The State of Bihar appealed against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that barred sand mining in Banka district until a District Survey Report (DSR) received approval from the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The Supreme Court examined whether th

GOA FOUNDATION, GOAversusDIKSHA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 51610 November 2000Dismissed

The Goa Foundation challenged the permission granted to Diksha Holdings for constructing a beach‑resort hotel on a plot in Nagorcem, Goa, alleging that the land fell within Coastal Regulation Zone‑I (CRZ‑I) where construction is prohibited and that the clearance violated the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The High C

GAJUBHA JADEJA JESARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 81210 August 2022Disposed off

The project proponent obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate for a cold‑rolled stainless steel unit in Gujarat, but the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was approached alleging violation of the 2006 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification which required prior environmental clearance (EC) for such se

M/S ARAVALI POWER CO PVT LTDversusVEDPRAKASH AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 54710 May 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by M/s Aravali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. challenging National Green Tribunal (NGT) orders that imposed environmental compensation on thermal power plants for non‑compliance with earlier Ministry of Environment notifications on fly‑ash utilization. The NGT had based its orders on the 1

M. NIZAMUDDINversusM/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 13910 March 2010Disposed off

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. sought to set up a PVC plant in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, importing Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) via a marine terminal and laying pipelines that cross the Uppanar river. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) granted environmental clearance under the 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notific

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITYversusDLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADELIE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) & ORS.

2018 INSC 2110 January 2018Disposed off

The Kerala State Coastal Management Authority (KCZMA) challenged DLF Universal Ltd's multi‑storey residential project on the banks of Chilavannurkayal, alleging violations of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification and lack of prior CRZ clearance. The Kerala High Court initially ordered demolition, but a Divisio

ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC

2021 INSC 8599 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Electrosteel Steels Ltd. obtained environmental clearance (EC) and consent to establish a steel plant at a specified site in Bokaro, but later shifted the plant 5.3 km away, allegedly encroaching forest land. The Ministry of Environment and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) revoked the EC, leading the

F.B. TARAPORAWALA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusBAYER INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 10159 September 1996Disposed off

Builders sought permission to construct buildings in an area where chemical factories operated, prompting the Bombay High Court to prohibit any construction within a 1 km radius of the factories. The chemical manufacturers appealed, arguing that the prohibition infringed the residents' right to reside and that the High

T.N. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 6209 May 2008Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 202 of 1955), corrected typographical errors in its earlier order dated 28 March 2008 concerning exemptions from payment of Net Present Value (NPV) under s.3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Court clarified the ca

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNITversusP.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

2020 INSC 6888 December 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of notifications issued under Sections 2(2) and 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 that declared a green‑field stretch (C‑K‑S) as National Highways NH‑179A and NH‑179B and authorised land acquisition for the Chennai‑Krishnagiri‑Salem corridor. The Court held that Parliament, u

M/S VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT)versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 5288 August 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, Mis Vaamika Island (Green Lagoon Resort), challenged the inclusion of their 5.21 acres on Vettilla Thuruthu Island in Map 32A of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) and its classification as a Filtration Pond and CRZ‑1, alleging that the map and classification were ultra vires the Coastal Re

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 7508 May 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined extensive illegal mining in the Aravalli Hills of Haryana, where numerous mines operated without environmental clearances, rehabilitation plans, or compliance with statutory reclamation requirements, causing severe groundwater depletion and ecological damage. The Court considered earlier orde

TARUN BHARAT SANGH, ALWARversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1993 INSC 1478 April 1993

The Supreme Court heard a petition filed under Article 32 by the environmental NGO Tarun Bharat Sangh, seeking to stop illegal mining in the Alwar Tiger Reserve, which is also a sanctuary, national park and protected forest under various statutes. The Court examined whether the mining leases granted by the Rajasthan Go

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,versusMODERN SCHOOL, FARIDABAD & ORS.

2019 INSC 1688 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad issued an office order in 1999 requiring private tubewell owners, including Modern School, to pay user charges for discharging waste water into municipal drains. The schools challenged the levy, arguing that under Sections 87 and 88 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994,

MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC THRU THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MS. NATALIA VORUZ & OTHERSversusNUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. THRU THE DIRECTOR & OTHERS

2019 INSC 358 January 2019Disposed off

Monsanto Technology LLC sued Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. for permanent and temporary injunctions alleging infringement of its patented cotton biotechnology (patent No. 214436) and misuse of its trademarks. The defendants filed a counter‑claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act seeking revocation of the patent on the ground t

SWACCH ASSOCIATION, NAGPURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 11997 October 2025Dismissed

The Swacch Association filed a public‑interest litigation alleging that Futala Tank in Nagpur was a wetland and that several constructions – a musical fountain, a viewer’s gallery, a parking plaza and an artificial banyan tree – were permanent structures violating the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017. T

RAZA AHMADversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

2022 INSC 2657 March 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant challenged the environmental clearance (EC) granted in 2008 for a cement grinding unit and a 2011 state notification that changed the land use of a 34.59‑acre green‑belt parcel to "industrial purpose". The High Court transferred the petition to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which dismissed it on grou

BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD.versusBOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1427 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the validity of Development Control Regulation 58 (OCR 58) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, its 2001 amendment and a 2003 clarification, as applied to sick, closed or modernising cotton‑textile mills in Bombay. The petitioners, a public‑interest group, challenged OCR 58 on

THE GOA FOUNDATIONversusM/S SESA STERLITE LTD. & ORS.

2018 INSC 1107 February 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the State of Goa's grant of second renewals of mining leases after illegal mining was uncovered. It held that the earlier *Goa Foundation* judgment required the State to grant fresh mining leases, not renewals, and that the High Court erred in directing execution of lease deeds under Section

M.C. MEHTA ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 37 January 1998

The Supreme Court considered a petition filed under Article 32 seeking clarification on the constitution of an Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for the National Capital Region (NCR) under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Court examined whether the earlier order of 13 Septem

LAFARGE UMIAM MINING PVT. LTD. T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 4616 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd.'s limestone mining project in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, where the company had obtained environmental clearance in 2001 based on a certificate stating the land was not forest. Subsequent inspections by forest officials in 2006‑2007 identified forest cover, lea

RATNAGIRI NAGAR PARISHADversusGANGARAM NARAYAN AMBEKAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3886 May 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad sought to set up a solid waste disposal project on land allotted by the State, which was challenged by a group of local residents who filed a suit for a permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence, but the first appellate court and the High Court reversed t

IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 1786 March 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether tiger safaris can be treated like zoos under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and whether the proposed tiger safari at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger Reserve was lawful. It held that a zoo, as defined in s.2(39), is an ex‑situ conservation establishment and tiger safaris, as envisioned b

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 9016 January 2014Disposed off

The petitioners sought compliance with the Supreme Court's order in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India, which directed the Central Government to appoint a National Regulator under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for independent appraisal and monitoring of environmental clearan

FARHD K. WADIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 14025 December 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Farhd K. Wadia, sought a writ directing that Rang Bhavan, an open‑air theatre in Mumbai, be exempted from the "silence zone" provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, after his application to use loudspeakers was rejected following a 2003 Bombay High Court order in a earlier

TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTDversusAALOK JAGGA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 12035 November 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined Tata Housing Development Co.'s attempt to construct a high‑rise housing project (CAMELOT) on 52.66 acres in Mohali, Punjab, which lay within 123 metres of the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and inside the catchment area of Sukhna Lake. The appellants argued that the environmental clearance granted

SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS.versusDISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS.

2008 INSC 10175 September 2008Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired a large tract of land in Hyderabad for an integrated infrastructure project, the Financial District, to be implemented by the state nodal agency APllC in partnership with a private company, Emaar. Small landowners challenged the acquisition, alleging it was not for a public pur

VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 9615 August 2025Case Partly allowed

The petition challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 29 January 2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the accompanying Office Memorandum of 30 January 2025, which altered the regime of environmental clearance for building and construction projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the 2006 Sc

DEEPAK NITRITE LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3555 May 2004Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard appeals against a Gujarat High Court order that required 252 chemical industries in the Nandesari industrial estate to pay 1% of their maximum annual turnover as compensation for alleged pollution. The High Court had found that the units violated Gujarat Pollution Control Board standards but had

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 1855 April 2002Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court examined the Union of India's repeated attempts to extend the deadline for phasing out diesel buses in Delhi and to modify the Court's earlier orders directing a complete conversion to CNG. It held that the directions of the Bhure Lal Committee and the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Au

RAJEEV SURIversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

2021 INSC 45 January 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the Central Vista Project of the Government of India, which involves redevelopment of the Parliament House and Central Secretariat. The challenge was based on alleged procedural irregularities, lack of public participation, and violations of heritage and environmental laws. The

AMRAVATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusGANESH DADARAO ANASANE & ORS.

2026 INSC 7964 August 2026

The Supreme Court examined the need to institutionalise solid waste management under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 and to formulate principles for environmental compensation. It directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to constitute a Central Implementation Committee, which was already a

IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. T.N. B GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 8443 December 2010Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the construction of a large memorial park in Noida, alleging that the 33.43‑hectare site was forest land and that the project proceeded without the required prior environmental clearance under the 2006 EIA Notification, thereby threatening the nearby Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The Court examined r

VINOD KAPOORversusSTATE OF GOA & ORS.

2012 INSC 4443 October 2012Dismissed

Vinod Kapoor challenged the construction of a bungalow on C‑land in Goa, alleging violations of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and the Coastal Regulation Zone notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ petition on the basis of a technical report and late

DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEEversusLODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD. ETC.

2025 INSC 9233 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) appealed against a Delhi High Court decision that held it could not levy restitutionary or compensatory damages under s.33A of the Water Act and s.31A of the Air Act, on the ground that such powers amounted to penalties. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, the p

STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.

2019 INSC 7213 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) orders that banned rat‑hole coal mining in Meghalaya, directed the State to deposit Rs 100 crore for environmental restoration, and held that all coal extracted after May 2016 vested in the State. The Court held that the NGT

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 6353 June 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined applications arising from a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report on illegal mining in Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, Rajasthan, and the broader issue of eco‑sensitive zones (ESZ) around protected forests. It affirmed that the State must act as a trustee of natural resources under the P

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 7002 August 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined a massive illegal mining scandal in Odisha involving 187 iron and manganese ore leases, many of which operated without environmental or forest clearances, exceeded mining plans, or violated statutory provisions. The Court rejected the lease‑holders' claim that the Justice M.B. Shah Commission

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANRversusMEDHA PATKAR & ORS.

2011 INSC 5312 August 2011Disposed off

After the completion of the Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar dams, the Madhya Pradesh government initiated land acquisition for canal construction under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Medha Patkar and other petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing that the Command Area Development (CAD) plans had not been submitted

STER LITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2013 INSC 2042 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Sterlite Industries obtained environmental clearance and consent orders to set up a copper smelter in Tuticorin in 1995. The Madras High Court ordered its closure, citing lack of a mandatory public hearing, violation of a 25‑km distance condition from an ecologically sensitive area, and an inadequate green‑belt require

A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD-IIversusPROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5641 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Andhra Pradesh Government could lawfully exempt a hazardous vegetable‑oil industry from a statutory 10‑km prohibition around the Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar reservoirs, which supply drinking water to Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The State had issued GO 153 granting the exemption

M/S TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 10601 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, was ordered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to pay Rs.18 crore as environmental compensation for alleged illegal discharge of untreated effluents and related violations. The appellant challenged the orders on the ground that it was n

N.D. JAYAL AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 4381 September 2003Disposed off

The petitioners filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking a halt to the Tehri Dam project, directions for additional safety tests (3‑D non‑linear analysis and dam‑break simulation), compliance with the conditions of the 1990 environmental clearance, and proper rehabilitation of displaced families. The Gover

K. GURUPRASAD RAOversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 3971 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard a public‑interest writ petition seeking the cancellation of a mining lease and a ban on mining within one kilometre of the 16th‑century Jambunatha Temple, a protected monument in Karnataka. The petition challenged mining activities that were alleged to have caused structural damage to the temple

ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.versusROHIT PRAJAPATI & ORS.

2020 INSC 3261 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Three pharmaceutical units in Ankleshwar began operations without obtaining the prior environmental clearance (EC) mandated by the 1994 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification. The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a 2002 circular allowing defaulting units to obtain an ex‑post‑facto EC, which the Na

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIversusGAGAN NARANG & ORS. ETC.

2025 INSC 21 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) sought approval from the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) to conduct a tariff‑based competitive bidding for a 28 MW waste‑to‑energy (WTE) project at Narela Bawana, invoking Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Waste to Energy Research & Technology Council c

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search