Supreme Court of India
THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATIONversusNAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 347
- Decided
- 16 March 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- BELA M TRIVEDI
Holding
The National Green Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as no substantial environmental question under the NGT Act arose, rendering its directions ultra vires and liable to be set aside.
Summary
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, residents of Auroville, had sought an injunction on the basis that the road construction would destroy a large number of trees in the Darkali forest, which they claimed was a deemed forest protected under environmental law. The Supreme Court examined whether the NGT had a substantial question of environment under Section 14 of the NGT Act, and whether any provision of Schedule I statutes was violated. It held that the Tribunal misdirected itself, as no substantial environmental question arose and the Master Plan had already been approved by the competent authority, giving it statutory force. Consequently, the Court quashed the NGT's orders and allowed the appeals, emphasizing the primacy of the Auroville Foundation Act and the principle of sustainable development.
Issues considered
- Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act to entertain the application filed by the residents of Auroville.
- Whether the road construction activities alleged to affect the Darkali forest raised a 'substantial question relating to environment' as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act.
- Whether any provision of the statutes listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act, particularly the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, was violated by the Auroville Foundation.
- Whether the directions to prepare a new township plan and to obtain environmental clearance were within the permissible scope of the Tribunal's powers.
Legislation cited
- Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980
- Auroville Foundation Act, 1988s. Section 17(e), s. Section 19(2)(c), s. Section 27
- Biological Diversity Act, 2002
- Constitution of India
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- Model Town and Country Planning Act, 1960
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. Section 14, s. Section 15, s. Section 19, s. Section 20, s. Section 2(1)(m)
- Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
Subjects
National Green TribunalJurisdiction of National Green TribunalPrecautionary principleSubstantial question relating to environmentRight to clean environmentRight to developmentSustainable DevelopmentForest (Conservation) ActAuroville Master PlanCrown RoadEnvironmental clearanceJoint CommitteePolluter Pays PrincipleModel Town and Country Planning Act
Judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 516 : 2025 INSC 347
The Auroville Foundation
v.
Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5781-5782 of 2022)
17 March 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of judgment passed by the
National Green Tribunal giving directions to the appellant-Foundation
as regards the construction of roads in Auroville Township.
Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss.14, 15, Schedule I –
Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal – Substantial question
relating to environment – Auroville Township Project –
Application by respondent nos.1 and 2 before the National
Green Tribunal, with regard to cutting of large number of
trees by the appellant Foundation, alleging that appellant was
focusing on the manifestation of the roads mentioned in the
Master Plan, the Crown Road, a road encircling the centre of
the Township, and the outer ring road, and was intending to
distract Darkali Forest by using huge machineries causing
deterioration to the environment; that the lands were covered
under the deemed forest and were entitled to the protection –
Tribunal held that it would not come under the definition of
“Forest” for the purposes of obtaining clearance; it applied the
“Precautionary Principle”, and held that any further activity to
be done by the appellant, could be permitted to be carried out
only after obtaining necessary prior environmental clearance
and also appointed a Joint Committee to inspect the area
in question and ascertain whether any modification could
be made in the width of the road, and further directed the
appellant to prepare a proper Township plan – Correctness:
Held: For the exercise of jurisdiction by the tribunal u/s.14, it has
to be shown that a substantial question relating to environment
including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment
is involved and such questions arise out of the implementation
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 517
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
of the enactments specified in Schedule I – Every question or
dispute raised by an applicant before the tribunal pertaining to the
environment cannot be treated as a substantial question – Tribunal
completely misdirected itself by entering into the restricted domain
of judicial review under the guise of applying “Precautionary
Principle” in extraordinary circumstances, and in interfering with the
implementation of Master Plan which was already approved by the
competent Authority way back in the year 2001 and had attained a
statutory force and a finality – Construction of roads as mentioned
in the said approved Master Plan including the Crown Road, being
on the verge of completion, except few patches, which could not be
completed because of the obstructions caused by the disgruntled
residents – Tribunal misdirected itself by directing the appellant to
prepare a proper Township Plan – Directions by tribunal clearly fall
outside the purview of its jurisdiction particularly when there was
no substantial question relating to the environment was shown to
have arisen in implementation of any of the enactments specified in
Schedule I to the Act, nor violation of any of the enactments specified
in Schedule-I was alleged – Thus, the tribunal committed gross
error in assuming the jurisdiction and giving directions untenable
in law – Impugned orders passed by the tribunal quashed and set
aside. [Paras 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19]
Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19, 21 – Right to clean
environment vis-à-vis right to development:
Held: Though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and the
“Polluter Pays Principle” are part of the environmental law of the
country, it is equally true that while the right to clean environment
is a guaranteed fundamental right under Arts.14 and 21, but the
right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority
under fundamental rights particularly u/Arts.14, 19 and 21 – There
is a need for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and striking
a golden balance between the right to development and the right
to clean environment. [Para 17]
Case Law Cited
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
[1996] Supp. 9 SCR 982 : (1997) 2 SCC 267; State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and
Development [2020] 12 SCR 1139 : (2020) 9 SCC 781; H.P.
Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority v. Central
518 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Empowered Committee [2021] 1 SCR 344 : (2021) 4 SCC 309;
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others [1996]
Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647; Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar
Utkarsh Samiti & Ors. [2004] 1 SCR 808 : (2004) 2 SCC 392;
N.D. Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2003] Supp. 3 SCR
152 : (2004) 9 SCC 362 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Auroville Foundation Act, 1988; Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980; National Green Tribunal Act, 2010;
Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980; Model Town and
Country Planning Act, 1960.
List of Keywords
National Green Tribunal; Directions issued by National Green
Tribunal; Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal; Cutting of
large number of trees; Precautionary principle; Joint Committee;
Substantial question relating to environment; Right to clean
environment; Right to development; Sustainable Development;
Forest; Master Plan; Auroville; Galaxy Model Plan; Matrimandir;
Town plan; Auroville Town Development Council; Auroville
Universal Township Master Plan-Perspective 2025; Darkali forest;
Environmental clearance; Special Act; Crown Road; Brundtland
Report; Polluter Pays Principle.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5781-5782
of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2022 of National Green
Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No. 239 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
R. Venkatramani, Sr. Adv./A.G., Vaibhav Venkatesh, Balaji
Srinivasan
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., A Yogeswaran, T. V. S. Raghavendra
Sreyas, Nishanth Patil, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Nithyaesh Natraj,
Ajay Marwah, M.V. Swaroop, Vikas Mehta
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 519
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. The present Appeals stem from the final judgment and order
dated 28.04.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Chennai
(hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 239/2021, and
from an interim order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the said Tribunal in
the M.A. No.6/2022 in O.A No.239/2021. The directions given by the
Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2022 read as under:-
I. “125. In the result, this Original Application is allowed in part
and disposed of with the following directions: -
(i) The 1st Respondent is directed to prepare a
proper township plan either in respect of 778 Ha
which is in their possession now or in respect of
1963 Ha which was visualized by the MOTHER by
identifying the locations where each zone will have
to be located, where the roads will have to be laid
showing the location of the ring roads with their
width and further road, if any, to be constructed, the
nature of industries and other activities which they are
expected to establish in the township and if it is not
going to be implemented as one phase, how many
phases in which they are going to complete the project
and then apply for Environmental Clearance (EC)
as it will fall under Item 8 (b) of the EIA Notification,
2006 as amended from time to time. Till then they
are directed not to proceed with further construction
in the project area.”
(ii) Considering it as an exceptional circumstances,
even before obtaining Environmental Clearance
(EC) for further activity, we are permitting the 1st
Respondent to complete the crown road on the
following conditions: -
a. The Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal
viz., (i) the District Collector who is the Chairman of
the District Green Committee of the concerned district
520 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
along with (ii) the Forest Officer not below the rank
of Conservator of Forest, as deputed by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forests Force)
and Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Tamil Nadu to
inspect the area in question and ascertain whether
by reducing the width of the road at suitable places
or by slight realignment (if any) required, so that the
number of trees to be cut can be minimized so that
the vision of the MOTHER of creating a green cover
in that area can be protected.
b. The Joint Committee is also directed to ascertain
as to whether there are any water bodies/streams
exists in that area and if the road passes through
the water body, then what is the manner in which the
road will have to be constructed by elevation without
affecting the water body/water flow or a bed level
causeway with box type of vents will suffice. If such
a recommendation is made, that also will have to be
implemented, and the 1st Respondent is to undertake
the construction as suggested by the committee.
c. The Joint Committee is directed to complete the
process and submit the report to the 1st Respondent
within a period of two months and on receipt of the
same, the 1st Respondent is directed to carry out the
crown road work, in the impugned area with tree cover,
strictly in accordance with the recommendations made
by the Joint Committee.
d. Till that exercise is completed, the 1st Respondent
is directed not to cut any further trees from the
property. The 1st Respondent is at liberty to undertake
the crown road work in the remaining stretches
where there are no trees. The 1st Respondent is
also at liberty to take action against unauthorized
occupations, if any, strictly in accordance with the
law in force.
(iii) The 1st Respondent is also directed to plant
trees in the ratio of 1: 10 for the number of trees to
be cut, and the species to be recommended by the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 521
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
Joint Committee may be considered for planting either
on the side of the road or other area identified by
the Joint Committee, in order to protect environment
and also to maintain the green cover in that area.
(iv) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed
to bear their respective costs in the application.
(v) The Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the members of the Joint Committee
appointed by this Tribunal, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (Head of Forests Force)
and Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Tamil Nadu, the
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
(MoEF&CC) and the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Department of Environment, Forests &
Climate Change for their information and compliance
of directions.”
II. The following further directions were given by the Tribunal by
passing the interim order dated 27.07.2022 in MA No. 6/2022:
“7. In the meantime, the Joint Committee appointed
by this Tribunal vide Judgment dated 28.04.2022 is
also directed to file the report regarding the nature
of work done and observations made by them at the
time of inspection.”
2. This Court on 13.12.2023 passed the following interim order pending
these Appeals.
“5. Having regard to the said prayer which was sought by
the Respondent No.1 (original applicant) and having regard
to the final directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned
order, we are of the prima facie opinion that the direction
contained in Para 125(i) being outside the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal, the same is required to be stayed till further
orders, and is ordered accordingly.”
3. Prelude on the History of Auroville:-
I. Before appreciating the issues involved, it would be apt to
peep into the history of Auroville. In 1965, the “Mother” (Mirra
Alfassa, a French lady), a spiritual collaborator of Sri Aurobindo
522 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(a Spiritual reformer, Philosopher and Educationist), envisioned
to launch the project of Auroville, with an aim to establish an
international universal township, where men and women of
all countries are able to live in peace and harmony, above all
creeds, all politics and all nationalities and to realise human
unity. The project of Auroville was formerly inaugurated by the
“Mother” in 28.02.1968. The Charter of Auroville given by the
“Mother” was the following:
“1. Auroville belongs to nobody in particular. Auroville
belongs to humanity as a whole. But to live in
Auroville one must be a willing servitor of the Divine
Consciousness.
2. Auroville will be the place of an unending education,
of constant progress and a youth that never ages.
3. Auroville wants to be the bridge between the past
and the future. Taking advantage of all discoveries
from without and from within, Auroville will boldly
spring towards future realisations.
4. Auroville will be a site of material and spiritual
researches for a living embodiment of an actual
Human Unity.”
II. The original Master Plan of the Auroville was conceptualized
in Galaxy shape, and was planned to eventually accommodate
50,000 residents, a number which the “Mother” considered
sufficient to allow the experiment in human unity to take on a
meaningful and significant dimension. Picture of Galaxy Model
Plan conceptualized in 1968 is shown below:
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 523
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
III. The project Auroville was legally started as the project of
a charitable organization, “The Sri Aurobindo Society” in
Pondicherry, which was created to diffuse Sri Aurobindo’s
thoughts. The development of Auroville in the initial few years
showed good progress and it developed at a rapid pace. Number
of Indians and foreigners settled down in Auroville and devoted
themselves to various activities showing a remarkable harmony
amongst the members of Auroville, which gave a promise to
the Government of India of an early fulfilment of the ideals for
which Auroville was established. It was also encouraged by
UNESCO and other International Organizations of the world.
However, after the “Mother” passed away in 1973, the situation
changed, and number of complaints came to be received by
the Government of India with regard to the mismanagement
in the working of the Sri Aurobindo Society. Following the
requests by majority of Auroville residents, the Government
of India issued a Presidential Ordinance called the Auroville
(Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980, later replaced by
the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980. Finally, the
Government of India created a unique status for Auroville by
passing the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as the “A.F.Act”).
4. Constitution of Auroville Foundation and its Standing Orders-
I. The Government of India notified the Constitution of Auroville
Foundation as a statutory body on 29.01.1991 under the A.F.
Act, and at present it is under the realm of Ministry of Human
Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) as
the Central Government undertaking.
II. As transpiring from the record, the original Galaxy Plan
envisioned by the “Mother” in 1968 was the plan with four zones
in Auroville, with the centripetal force, being the “Matrimandir”.
The said Galaxy Plan was revised in 1972 as the First Master
Plan called the “Town Plan”. As the A.F. Act required statutory
Master Plan as contemplated in Section 17(e) read with Section
19(2)(c) of the said A.F. Act, the Master Plan was approved
by the Governing Board and the Residents’ Assembly of the
Appellant Foundation in 1999. The said 1999 Master Plan
was further approved by the competent authority- the Town
524 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO), Ministry of Urban
Development, on 15.02.2001 under the Model Town and Country
Planning Act. The said Master Plan was notified on 16.08.2010
and published in the Official Gazette on 28.08.2010.
III. In view of Section 11(3) of the A.F. Act, the Governing Board
decided, that “Standing Orders” not inconsistent with the
provisions of the A.F. Act and the Rules made thereunder, on the
matters that the Governing Board may consider appropriate and
necessary, shall be notified from time to time, by the Auroville
Foundation. The said Resolution was notified in the Gazette
of India, Part III dated 05.03.2011 by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development (Department of Higher Education).
IV. Since the said approved Master Plan prescribed the “Town
Development Council” as the body for implementing the Master
Plan with the organizational structure as in Appendix V of the
Master Plan, the Governing Board in terms of the provisions
of the Master Plan, constituted the Town Development Council
for the purpose of implementation of the Master Plan, vide
the Standing Order No. 6/2011 dated 01.05.2011, which was
notified in the Government of India Gazette, Part III, dated
11.06.2011. The said Standing Order dated 01.05.2011 came
to be replaced by the Standing Order No. 1/2019 dated
04.06.2019.
V. Again, the said Standing Order dated 04.06.2019 came to be
replaced by the Standing Order No.1/2022 dated 01.06.2022,
which was notified in the Gazette of India, Part III, on 15.07.2022.
On 01.06.2022, the Auroville Foundation issued the Office
Order for the re-constitution of the Auroville Town Development
Council (ATDC). The Appellant-Foundation thereafter also
issued a Corrigendum dated 07.12.2022, to the Standing Order
No. 1/2022 dated 01.06.2022, in order to clarify and add the
source of statutory power in the Preamble to the said original
Standing Order dated 01.06.2022. The said Corrigendum was
also published in the Gazette of India, Part III, on 10.12.2022.
5. Prefatory Facts:-
I. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the original Applicants) had filed
an Application being O.A. No.239/2021 before the Tribunal,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 525
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
raising a grievance with regard to cutting of large number of trees
by the Appellant-Auroville Foundation, alleging inter alia that
the Master Plan for Auroville as envisaged by the ‘Mother’ was
approved by the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation
in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly, and it further
led to preparation of the Auroville Universal Township Master
Plan-Perspective 2025, which was approved by the Ministry of
Human Resources Development in 2001. However, now the
Appellant-Foundation was focusing on the manifestation of the
roads mentioned in the Master Plan, e.g. the Crown Road, a
road encircling the centre of the Township, and the outer ring
road, and was intending to distract Darkali Forest by using huge
machineries causing deterioration to the environment. According
to the Respondents-original Applicants, the said lands covered
under the deemed Forest, were entitled to the protection as
mandated in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of
India and Others 1 case.
II. The Respondents Applicant therefore had sought the following
reliefs in the said O.A. No.239/2021.
“INTERIM RELIEF:
A. Injunct the 1st respondent from felling any tree
or clearing undergrowth in the Darkali forest or any
area in Auroville for the proposed crown road project.
B. Issue such other orders as it deems fit in the
interest of the case and render justice.
MAIN PRAYER:
A. Direct the 1st respondent to prepare a Detailed
Development Plan including a mobility plan which
is based on and respects the present-day ground
realities, to be approved as mandated in the Master
Plan and implement projects based on such plan
after necessary impact assessments and feasibility
studies in an environmentally sustainable manner.
1 (1997) 2 SCC 267
526 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
B. Direct the respondent to pay costs to the applicant.
C. Issue such other orders as it deems fit in the
interest of the case and render justice.”
III. The Tribunal initially vide the order dated 10.12.2021 granted
an interim order directing the Appellant-Foundation not to cut
any further trees till the next date of hearing. The said interim
order thereafter was extended till the final disposal of the case.
IV. The Appellant-Foundation (1st Respondent before the Tribunal)
had filed a counter affidavit raising various contentions
including the maintainability of the Application itself as also
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Application.
It was specifically contended that neither the word ‘Forest’
did appear in the Auroville Charter nor in the Act of 1988.
Auroville or any part of it, was neither a Forest nor a deemed
Forest requiring protection or clearance under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.
V. The Respondent No.3-Union of India through the Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC-
the Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) had also filed a
counter-affidavit stating in detail the stand and role of the
Ministry and contending inter alia that the requirement of prior
Environmental Clearance for certain categories of construction
and developmental activities (new construction projects and new
industrial estates) in the country was inserted in Schedule-I,
after Item 30, through an amendment in EIA Notification, 1994
(operative at that time) vide the Notification dated 07.07.2004.
The Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 had issued Environment Impact Assessment Notification
dated 14.09.2006 superseding Environment Impact Assessment
Notification 1994, which required prior Environmental Clearance
from the concerned Regulatory Authority. It was further contended
that the Auroville Project was examined by the said regulatory
authority for the applicability of environmental clearance as
directed by the Tribunal and it was found that the Auroville
Township Project was under construction much before the EIA
Notification, 1994 and its amendment in 2004, and substantial
building work of Auroville Project was completed at various
stages as far back as in 2001. Therefore, it could not have
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 527
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
been considered as a new project under the provisions of the
Notification dated 07.07.2004. It was specifically contented that
there was no change in the scope of Township project from the
original Master Plan, and as such the Township project would
not affect the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and its
amendments for grant of Environmental Clearance.
VI. The Tribunal raised the following points for consideration.
“65. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the application is maintainable?
(ii) Whether it was barred by limitation?
(iii) Whether the intended activity of the 1st respondent
requires any prior Environmental Clearance or
clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 as claimed by the applicant. Even if they are
not required, is there any necessity to issue any
directions applying the “Precautionary Principle” to
protect environment and if so, what are the nature
of directions to be issued?”
VII. The Tribunal assuming the jurisdiction observed that a
substantial question of alleged violation of environmental laws
in the implementation of the project having been involved,
the Application was maintainable. Disagreeing with the stand
taken by the MoEF&CC that the Project would fall within the
exempted category of 2004 Notification and did not require
the Environmental Clearance, the Tribunal held that any
further activity to be done by the Appellant-Foundation can be
permitted to be carried out only after obtaining the necessary
prior Environmental Clearance. As regards the disputed Crown
Road, the Tribunal held inter alia that the major portion of Crown
Road has already been completed and only a small portion has
remained, and that if it was not allowed to be completed, there
would be hardship caused to the Appellant-Foundation. The
Tribunal, on the question as to whether the area in question
was a Forest as envisaged in T.N. Godavarman’s case, held
that it could not be treated as a Forest, as in none of the
Government documents produced, it was treated as Forest,
and admittedly it was man-made plantation of some species.
528 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Tribunal therefore held that it would not come under the
definition of “Forest” for the purposes of obtaining clearance
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
VIII. The Tribunal after recording such findings applied the
“Precautionary Principle” and issued the directions as stated
earlier, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2022
in O.A. No. 239/2021, and the impugned order dated 27.07.2022
in M.A. No. 6/2022, which are assailed by the Appellant-
Foundation in these Appeals.
IX. It may be noted that one of the intervenors before the Tribunal,
Ms. Natasha Storey had also filed a Writ Petition being
No.25882/2022 challenging the Notification dated 01.06.2022
containing the Standing Order No. 1/2022 issued by the
Appellant-Foundation, and the Civil Appeal No. 13651/2024
arising out of the order passed in the said Writ Petition was
also heard simultaneously with the present set of Appeals.
The said Appeal is also being decided simultaneously by a
separate judgment.
6. Statutory Provisions of the NGT Act
I. As the long title of the Act states, the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010 (for short “NGT Act”) was enacted to provide for the
establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective
and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forest and other natural resources
including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment
and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and
property and for the matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto. Section 2(1)(m) defines “substantial question relating
to environment” as under:
“2(1)(m) “substantial question relating to environment”
shall include an instance where,—
(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory
environmental obligation by a person by which,—
(A) the community at large other than an individual or
group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected
by the environmental consequences; or
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 529
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
(B) the gravity of damage to the environment or
property is substantial; or
(C) the damage to public health is broadly measurable;
(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a
specific activity or a point source of pollution;”
II. Chapter III of the said Act pertains to the jurisdiction, powers and
proceedings of the Tribunal. Section 14 and Section 15 thereof
being relevant in respect of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the
same are reproduced hereunder:
“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—
(1) The Tribunal shall have the 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 enactments
specified in Schedule I.
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from
the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle
such disputes and pass order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under
this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal
unless it is made within a period of six months
from the date on which the cause of action for such
dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing
the application within the said period, allow it to be
filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—
(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,—
(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution
and other environmental damage arising under the
enactments specified in the Schedule I (including
accident occurring while handling any hazardous
substance);
530 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or
areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of
property and environment referred to in clauses (a),
(b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to
the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or
relief or restitution of property or environment under
this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal
unless it is made within a period of five years from
the date on which the cause for such compensation
or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing
the application within the said period, allow it to be
filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage
to public health, property and environment, divide the
compensation or relief payable under separate heads
specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation
or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the
damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief
under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about
the application filed to, or, as the case may be,
compensation or relief received from, any other court
or authority.”
III. Section 19 of the NGT Act pertains to the Procedure and Powers
of the Tribunal, which inter alia states that the Tribunal shall
not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principle of natural
justice. It also states that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the
rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 20 provides that the Tribunal shall, while passing any
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 531
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
order or decision or award, apply the Principles of Sustainable
Development, the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays
Principle.
IV. The enactments in respect of which the Tribunal has the
jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 14 and 15 are specified
in Schedule-I appended to the NGT Act, which reads as under:
“SCHEDULE I
[See sections 14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2),
19(4)(j) and 34(1)]
1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974;
2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Cess Act, 1977;
3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981;
5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.”
ANALYSIS:
7. As transpiring from the Section 14, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction
over all civil cases where the 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 enactments specified in Schedule I. Therefore,
for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal under Section 14, it has
to be shown that (1) a substantial question relating to environment
including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is
involved; and (2) such questions arise out of the implementation
of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The term “substantial
question relating to environment” as defined in Section 2(1)(m)
of the Act would include, inter alia, the question where there is a
532 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a
person by which (a) the community at large other than the individual
or group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the
environmental consequences; or (b) the gravity of damage to the
environment or property is substantial; or (c) the damage to public
health is broadly measurable. The substantial question would also
include the environmental consequences relating to a specific activity
or a point source of pollution. In view of the said definition also the
Tribunal before exercising the jurisdiction has to satisfy itself that a
substantial question pertaining to the violation of or implementation
of any specific statutory environmental obligations contained in any
of the enactments specified in Schedule I, is involved.
8. Recently in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Centre for
Environment Protection Research and Development,2 this Court
held as follows:
“42. In view of the definition of “substantial question relating
to environment” in Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act, the
learned Tribunal can examine and decide the question of
violation of any specific statutory environmental obligation,
which affects or is likely to affect a group of individuals,
or the community at large.
43. For exercise of power under Section 14 of the NGT Act,
a substantial question of law should be involved including
any legal right to environment and such question should
arise out of implementation of the specified enactments.
44. Violation of any specific statutory environmental
obligation gives rise to a substantial question of law
and not just statutory obligations under the enactments
specified in Schedule I. However, the question must arise
out of implementation of one or more of the enactments
specified in Schedule I.”
Similar view is also taken in case of H.P. Bus-Stand Management
and Development Authority Vs. Central Empowered Committee.3
2 (2020) 9 SCC 781
3 (2021) 4 SCC 309
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 533
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
9. From the above, it is explicitly clear that every question or dispute
raised by an Applicant before the Tribunal pertaining to the
environment cannot be treated as a substantial question. It has to
be a substantial question relating to environment as contemplated
in Section 2(1)(m), and such substantial question must arise out of
the implementation of any of the enactment/enactments specified
in Schedule I. Though strict law of evidence may not be applicable
to the cases filed before the Tribunal, the Applicant has to raise the
substantial question in his Application specifically alleging the violation
of a particular enactment specified in Schedule I.
10. So far as the facts of the present Appeal are concerned, as stated
hereinabove, the only grievance raised by the Respondents (original
Applicants) in their O.A. was with regard to the Appellant-Foundation
constructing the roads as mentioned in the Master Plan which was
already approved by the Governing Board of the Foundation and by
the Minister of Human Resource Development way back in 2001,
and published in the official gazette in 2010. The allegation made in
the Original Application was that while constructing the said roads
particularly the Crown road, or road encircling the centre of township,
and an Outer Ring Road, the forest area known as Darkali forest was
being destructed. According to the Respondents, the said area was
required to be treated as a deemed forest and was required to be
protected as mandated in the T.N. Godavarman’s Case. Except the
said bare allegations, there was no other allegation made with regard
to any violation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
11. Significantly, the Tribunal specifically negated the said allegations
raised by the Respondents by observing inter alia in para 118 of the
impugned judgment that the said area cannot be treated as a Forest,
as in any of the Government documents produced, it was not treated
as a Forest and not even shown as a Forest, and that admittedly, it
was a man-made plantation of some species, and therefore, it will
not come under the definition of Forest for the purpose of obtaining
clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Curiously,
after having held that the area in question could not be treated
as a Forest and that there was no clearance required under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, the Tribunal proceeded further applying
the “Precautionary Principle” and appointed a Joint committee to
inspect the area in question and ascertain whether any modification
could be made in the width of the road, and further directed the
534 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appellant-Foundation to prepare a proper Township plan in respect
of the area in their possession and in respect of the area visualized
by the “Mother”.
12. In our opinion, the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself by
entering into the restricted domain of judicial review under the guise
of applying “Precautionary Principle” in extraordinary circumstances,
and in interfering with the implementation of Master Plan which was
already approved by the competent Authority way back in the year
2001. As stated earlier, the original Galaxy Plan envisaged by the
“Mother” in 1968 was the structure with 4 zones in Auroville with
the centripetal force, being “Matrimandir”. The said Galaxy Plan was
revised in 1972 as the First Master Plan called the “Town Plan”.
Since the Auroville Foundation Act required Statutory Master Plan
as contemplated in Section 17(e) read with Section 19(2)(c), the said
Master Plan was approved by the Governing Board of the Appellant
Foundation in 1999, and was further approved by the competent
authority-Town and Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of Urban
Development on 15.02.2001. The said Master Plan was also notified
on 16.08.2010 and published in the Official Gazette on 28.08.2010.
13. Thus, the said Master Plan having been approved by the competent
Authority as back as in 2001 had attained a statutory force and a
finality. There are about more than 2000 substantial constructions/
developments, which have taken place in Auroville since then till this
date. The construction of roads as mentioned in the said approved
Master Plan including the Crown Road, a Road encircling the Centre
of the Township and an outer Ring Road, being on the verge of
completion, except few patches, which could not be completed
because of the obstructions caused by the disgruntled Residents
like the Respondents, the Tribunal thoroughly misdirected itself by
directing the Appellant to prepare a proper Township Plan. It is also
significant to note that the Auroville Foundation Act is a Special Act
enacted to provide for the Acquisition and Transfer of the Undertakings
of Auroville and to vest such undertakings in a Foundation established
for the purpose with a view to making long term arrangements for the
better management and further development of Auroville in accordance
with its Original Charter and for the purpose connected therewith and
incidental thereto. As per Section 27 of the said Act, the provisions
of the said Act have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for time being in force or in any
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 535
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act, or in
any decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other Authority. Thus, in
view of the overriding effect of A.F. Act also the impugned direction
issued by the Tribunal without any jurisdiction as circumscribed under
Section 14 of the NGT Act, would not be tenable at law.
14. The Tribunal has also travelled beyond its jurisdiction in giving the
impugned directions under the guise of exceptional circumstances
applying the “Precautionary Principle.” At this juncture, it is very
pertinent to note that as stated earlier, the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change in its affidavit filed before the Tribunal
had made its stand very clear that the Auroville Township Project
was under construction much before the EIA Notification, 1994 and
its amendment in 2004 and therefore could not be considered as a
new Project under the said Notification of 2004. It was also made
clear that there was no change in the scope of Township Project
from the Original Master Plan and as such, the Township Project
would not affect the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and its
amendments for the grant of Environment Clearance. Again curiously,
the Tribunal without any material on record, brushed aside the said
stand taken by MoEF&CC in its affidavit, by holding that any further
activity to be done by the Appellant-Foundation, could be permitted
to be carried out only after obtaining necessary prior Environmental
Clearance, and then proceeded to appoint the Joint Committee to
inspect the area in question and to ascertain whether the width of
the Road at suitable places could be reduced so that the number of
trees to be cut can be minimized. Such directions clearly fall outside
the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal particularly when there
was no substantial question relating to the environment was shown
to have arisen in implementation of any of the enactments specified
in Schedule I appended to the NGT Act. There is no whisper in
the impugned order as to which of the provision and which of the
enactment specified in Schedule I was violated.
15. It would not be out of place to regurgitate the law developed so
far on the protection of environment. In the landmark Judgment
in case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India &
Others,4 it was stated that the traditional concept that Development
4 (1996) 5 SCC 647
536 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and Ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.
“Sustainable Development” has been accepted as a viable concept
to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life, while living
within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable
Development” as defined by Brundtland Report means “development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of the future generations to meet their own needs.” The “Sustainable
Development” therefore has been held to be a balancing concept
between Ecology and Development as a part of the customary
international law.
16. In Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Ors.,5 this Court after
referring to the principles enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration,
made very apt observations in Para 26 and 27, which maybe quoted
hereunder: -
“26. Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm
Declaration giving broad parameters and guidelines for the
purposes of sustaining humanity and its environment. Of
these parameters, a few principles are extracted which are
of relevance to the present debate. Principle 2 provides
that the natural resources of the earth including air, water,
land, flora and fauna especially representative samples of
natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit
of present and future generations through careful planning
and management as appropriate. In the same vein, the
fourth principle says:
“man has special responsibility to safeguard
and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and
its habitat which are now gravely imperilled
by a combination of adverse factors. Nature
conservation including wildlife must, therefore,
receive importance in planning for economic
developments.”
These two principles highlight the need to factor in
considerations of the environment while providing
for economic development. The need for economic
5 (2004) 2 SCC 392
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 537
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
development has been dealt with in Principle 8 where it is
said that “economic and social development is essential for
ensuring a favourable living and working environment for
man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary
for improvement of the quality of life”. The importance of
maintaining a balance between economic development on
the one hand and environment protection on the other is
again emphasized in Principle 11 which says:
“The environmental policies of all States should
enhance and not adversely affect the present or
future development potential of developing countries
nor should they hamper the attainment of better living
conditions for all;”
27. This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic
and social needs on the one hand with environmental
considerations on the other. But in a sense all development
is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of
humanity and the rapid increase in the population together
with consequential demands to sustain the population has
resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down
of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water
resources and the very air which we breathe. However,
there need not necessarily be a deadlock between
development on the one hand and the environment on
the other. The objective of all laws on environment should
be to create harmony between the two since neither one
can be sacrificed at the altar of the other. This view was
also taken by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 281] , where it was
said: (SCC p. 296, para 31)
“While economic development should not be
allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or
by causing widespread environment destruction
and violation; at the same time the necessity to
preserve ecology and environment should not
hamper economic and other developments. Both
development and environment must go hand
in hand, in other words, there should not be
development at the cost of environment and vice
538 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
versa, but there should be development while
taking due care and ensuring the protection of
environment.”
17. Though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter
Pays Principle” are part of the environmental law of the country, it is
equally true that while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed
fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, the right to development through industrialisation equally
claims priority under fundamental rights particularly under Articles
14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is therefore a need
for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and striking a golden
balance between the right to development and the right to clean
environment. In N.D. Jayal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,6 it is
observed as under: -
“25. Therefore, the adherence to sustainable development
principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the
symbiotic balance between the rights to environment
and development. Right to environment is a fundamental
right. On the other hand, right to development is also
one. Here the right to “sustainable development” cannot
be singled out. Therefore, the concept of “sustainable
development” is to be treated as an integral part of “life”
under Article 21. Weighty concepts like intergenerational
equity (State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products [(1995)
6 SCC 363] ), public trust doctrine (M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] ) and precautionary
principle (Vellore Citizens [(1996) 5 SCC 647] ),
which we declared as inseparable ingredients of our
environmental jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by
ensuring sustainable development.”
18. As demonstrated earlier, in the instant case, no substantial question
relating to environment had arisen, nor violation of any of the
enactments specified in Schedule-I was alleged. The Tribunal
therefore had committed gross error in assuming the jurisdiction and
giving directions untenable in law.
6 (2004) 9 SCC 362
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 539
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
19. In that view of the matter, the impugned Orders passed by the
Tribunal being without jurisdiction and legally untenable deserve to
be quashed and set aside, and are hereby set aside. The Appeals
stand allowed accordingly.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "National Green Tribunal"Sign in to search