LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/tapas-guha-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-20240506/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Tapas Guha & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
6 May 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4603-4604 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
Citation
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 75 : 2024 INSC 399
Acts & Sections
National Green tribunal Act, 2010 EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) Dated…
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 75 : 2024 INSC 399
Issue for consideration
The Appellants in an Original Application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) contended that there was widespread cutting of shade trees, uprooting of tea bushes and eviction of tea estate workers in the Doloo Tea Estate, the site identified for the Greenfield Airport Project in Assam, without obtaining environmental clearance. It was also contended that this was in violation of the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, which necessitates prior Environmental Clearance and public consultation for Category-A projects in its Schedule. Whether the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dismissing the Original Application holding that mere inclusion of a clause under the head ‘Environment Clearances’ in the form of said Notification does not deem the same to be mandatory for purposes of the EIA assessment study is legally sustainable?
Headnote

Evidentiary value of the statements recorded on oath of witnesses for preparing the Report of the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) – Statements show use of 200 to 250 JCBs ‘day and night’ for three days in May 2022 and prohibition in movement of inhabitants during that time – Report recorded that 89 shade trees found to be cut on inspection and a statement of the Circle Officer that 41,95,909 tea bushes have been uprooted – Considered:

Held: The Court should keep in mind that the statements of the witnesses, though recorded on an oath, have not been tested on the anvil of cross-examination – Yet the statement of the Circle Officer that 41,95,909 tea bushes have been uprooted, prima facie corroborates it, at this stage. [Paras 10-12] The Affidavit of State Government placed reliance on the communication of the Member Secretary of the SEAC in Assam – That this was a case of routine uprooting of tea bushes and shade trees to improve production of tea – Disbelieved: Held: The argument of the Solicitor General that the possession of the site was handed over only in June 2022 and hence the destruction of the vegetation in May 2022 was not by the State authorities but likely by the inhabitants is inconceivable – On 11 May 2022, orders were issued by the District Magistrate under Section 144 CrPC – This was a prelude to the organized activities which took place in the month of May 2022, as recorded in the statements appended to the report of the DLSA – An organized operation involving over 200-250 JCBs at the behest of the tea garden workers is implausible – The clearance was evidently not a part of the regular maintenance of the tea estate but to facilitate the proposed new airport. [Paras 13-14]

National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Creation of – Purpose – Listed out:

Held: The NGT is an expert body established by a Central Statute viz., The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to safeguard the environment, ensure sustainable development and facilitate the effective and expeditious disposal of cases related to the protection and conservation of the environment, forests, and other natural resources. [Paras 16-17]

National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Perfunctory dismissal of case – Criticized:

Read the full headnote (4 more paragraphs)

Held: The Tribunal ought to have verified the authenticity of the grievance – Callous approach towards adjudication undermines the integrity of the judicial process and also compromises the very purpose for which the NGT was established – Such callousness also reflects a lack of due diligence and disregard for the gravity of the environmental concerns raised by the appellants setting a concerning precedent which erodes public trust in the efficacy of environmental governance mechanisms. [Paras 16-17] Environment – Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 – Para 2 of the Notification – Examined in the light of the facts:

Held: Paragraph 2 of the Notification makes it clear that before any construction or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category ‘A’ in the Schedule – Construction of airports is item 7(a) of the A Schedule to the Notification dated 14 September 2006 – Extensive activities were carried out at the site without obtaining environmental clearance and is in breach of paragraph 2 of the notification. [Paras 7 and 15]

The need for Environmental Regulations and Environmental Clearance – Explained:

Held: Environmental regulations are in place precisely to ensure that developmental projects, such as the establishment of airports, are undertaken in a manner that minimizes adverse ecological impacts and safeguards the well-being of both the environment and local communities – The infrastructure development must proceed in harmony with environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity – The requirement for Environmental Clearance prevents unchecked exploitation of natural resources and helps uphold the principles of sustainable development – The decision on whether an airport is situated at a particular place is a matter of policy, but when the law prescribes specific norms for carrying out activities requiring an Environmental Clearance, it has to be strictly complied with. [Paras 20-21]

Keywords: Environmental clearance · Felling trees · Tea estate · Greenfield airport

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI 1. Application for intervention is allowed. 2. These Appeals arise from an order dated 25 January 2024 of the Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal. 3. The Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Union Government decided to build a commercial Airport at Silchar in Assam since the existing defence airport is not suitable for domestic civilian operations. 4. Three tea estates, namely, (i) Doloo; (ii) Khoreel; and (iii) Silcoorie were identified by the Government of Assam for the sites of the airport. The Airport Authority of India1 conducted a
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →