Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. vs The State of Punjab & Ors.

Held: CLU dated 13.12.2021 could not have been granted for the proposed unit when, under the operative Master Plan for Sangrur, the site fell in a rural agricultural zone where the proposed activity was not permissible – Permission must be lawful when it is granted – It cannot be rendered lawful by a later event unless the PRTPD Act itself so provides – “Approval” recorded on 05.01.2022 could not lawfully cure the defect in the CLU dated 13.12.2021, and it is not capable, in law, of operating as an alteration or amendment of the Master Plan under the PRTPD Act – Approach adopted by the High Court, which treated the subsequent approval as curing the illegality of the CLU, cannot be accepted when the statutory structure does not permit legality to be supplied to an act which was unlawful when done, by a later administrative approval which does not itself satisfy the mandatory requirements governing alteration or revision of the Master Plan – High Court’s approach, which proceeded on the premise that an act lacking statutory backing on the date of its issuance may nonetheless be sustained by a subsequent ex post facto approval, is inconsistent with this statutory structure – Siting norms and safeguards, including the PPCB notification dated 02.09.1998 and the regulatory discipline underlying prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, not complied with in the manner required by law – Proposed control systems and future-stage compliances cannot substitute the obligation to satisfy siting norms and the discipline underlying prior environmental clearance at the relevant time – Nor can subsequent material or later regulatory developments be invoked to retrospectively validate the legality of permissions already found to be without statutory foundation – Thus, judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside – Change of Land Use granted in favour of respondent no.9 quashed. [Paras 9-36] Environmental law – Reclassification from “Red” category to “Orange” category – Revised industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB in January, 2025 – Reclassification of “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP (Captive Power Plant) from “Red” category to “Orange” category with the consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards brought about by Notifications GSR 84E dt 29.01.2025 and GSR 85E dt 30.01.2025 – Sustainability:

Held: Revised categorisation and the consequential regulatory relaxations elevate a generic classification methodology to a position where it overrides preventive environmental safeguards, without adequate regard to exposure risks, local conditions, or the constitutional obligation to protect life and health – Such an approach is inconsistent with the precautionary principle, the doctrine of sustainable development, and the content of Art. 21 – Revised categorisation and consequential relaxation of siting safeguards materially affect the level of protection available to civilians, including residents and school-going children, against exposure to industrial pollution – By lowering the regulatory threshold applicable to an activity with known particulate emission characteristics, revised framework permits such units to be located closer to habitations and educational institutions – Impact is not speculative, it directly implicates public health and safety – Thus, the present intervention warranted because the impugned actions have the effect of lowering the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to affected communities – Revised industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB in January, 2025, insofar as it reclassifies the activity described as a “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from the “Red” category to the “Orange” category, cannot be sustained in law – Said reclassification, read together with the consequential relaxation of siting and regulatory safeguards brought about by Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E has the effect of diluting preventive environmental protections in a manner that infringes the constitutional guarantees u/Arts.14 and 21 – Revised industrial sector categorisation issued by the CPCB in January, 2025 quashed insofar as it reclassifies the activity described as a “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” from the “Red” category to the “Orange” category – Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E quashed insofar as they relax the applicable siting and regulatory safeguards for such units on the basis of the said reclassification – Any consent, approval or permission that has been granted solely on the basis of the said reclassification of “stand-alone grinding unit without CPP” as an “Orange” category activity or on the basis of the relaxed siting and regulatory safeguards introduced by Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E will not survive and stands withdrawn – CPCB or MoEF & CC not precluded from undertaking fresh exercise of classification or regulatory review in accordance with law – Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 21. [Paras 65-68] Environmental law – Environmental protection and development – Constitutional balance – Explanation: Held: Economic development and industrial growth are legitimate and important objectives of the State – However, in a constitutional framework founded on the rule of law, development is not an abstract or absolute goal – It is conditioned by the non-derogable obligation to protect life, health, and environmental integrity – Development that undermines these foundational values ceases to be constitutionally permissible development – Doctrine of sustainable development is not a slogan of compromise but a principle of prioritisation – It requires that when developmental activity poses a credible risk to human health or environmental safety, regulatory frameworks must err on the side of protection – Constitution does not permit a trade-off where civilian life and health are exposed to foreseeable harm on the assumption that economic benefit or industrial facilitation justifies such exposure – Arts.14 and

21 do not tolerate a regulatory calculus that treats environmental safety as negotiable – If regulatory dilution were to be accepted, it would mark a fundamental shift in environmental governance – Sector-level reclassification, divorced from exposure realities and local sensitivities, would become a ready instrument to justify siting of polluting activities in close proximity to habitations, schools, and other sensitive receptors – It would operate as a precedent, enabling progressive erosion of preventive safeguards across regions, with cumulative and irreversible consequences – Law does not permit environmental protection to be weakened incrementally until harm becomes inevitable – Environmental harm, once caused, is often irreversible or incapable of full remediation – Public health consequences, degradation of air quality, and long-term ecological damage cannot be undone by subsequent regulatory correction – Thus, environmental regulation is designed to be preventive rather than reactive – Regulatory framework that allows risk to materialise first and seeks to address consequences later is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional environmental jurisprudence – This Court does not ordinarily interfere with technical classifications or policy determinations made by expert bodies, however, judicial restraint cannot extend to abdication – Where regulatory action results in lowering of the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to citizens, particularly in matters affecting life and health, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional obligation. [Paras 60-64]

Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – ss.70, 75, 76, 79-81 – Preparation and approval of Master Plans – Master Plan, its binding force, and the procedure for alteration/revision – Control of development and “change of land use” permissions – Explained. [Paras 7.1-7.10] Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 – Environmental clearance and siting safeguards – Explained. [Paras 7.11-7.13]