Supreme Court Held In Favour of Auroville Foundation and Sets Aside National Green Tribunal's order

The Supreme Court of India, in the matter of THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION VERSUS NAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS., set aside the final judgment and order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Chennai (NGT), which had directed the Auroville Foundation to prepare a proper township plan and obtain environmental clearance before proceeding with further construction. The Supreme Court held that the NGT had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing these directions.

Brief Background:
An application filed before the National Green Tribunal, Chennai (NGT) by Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. (the original applicants) raising concerns about the alleged large-scale cutting of trees by the Auroville Foundation for the construction of roads, including the Crown Road, as envisioned in the Master Plan for Auroville. The applicants contended that the affected area, referred to as Darkali Forest, should be protected as a deemed forest under the principles laid down in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others (Click to Download) case. They sought an injunction against further tree felling and a direction for the Foundation to prepare a detailed development plan based on present-day realities and environmental sustainability.

National Green Tribunal, despite acknowledging that the area in question was not a forest in government records and was a man-made plantation, applied the "Precautionary Principle" and directed the Foundation to prepare a new township plan, obtain environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, and constituted a joint committee to assess the minimization of tree cutting for the Crown Road. The NGT also permitted the completion of the Crown Road subject to the committee's recommendations and directed a 1:10 tree plantation ratio for any trees cut.

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal by the Auroville Foundation, opined that the NGT's direction to prepare a new township plan was outside its jurisdiction. The Court observed that the Master Plan for Auroville was originally conceptualized in 1968, revised in 1972, and a statutory Master Plan was approved by the Governing Board and the Residents’ Assembly in 1999, subsequently approved by the Town and Country Planning Organisation in 2001 and notified in 2010. The Court emphasized that this approved Master Plan had attained statutory force and finality, with substantial development having occurred based on it. The Supreme Court found that the original application before the NGT primarily concerned the destruction of the alleged Darkali forest due to road construction. However, the NGT itself concluded that the area was not a forest requiring clearance under The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Important Observations:
The Tribunal has jurisdiction over civil cases involving a substantial question relating to the environment arising out of the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010.

A substantial question relating to the environment includes instances of direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation affecting the community or causing substantial environmental damage.

Every question or dispute pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a substantial question; it must specifically allege the violation of an enactment in Schedule I.

In this case, the NGT specifically negated the allegation that the area was a forest requiring clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The NGT misdirected itself by entering into judicial review and interfering with the implementation of a Master Plan that was already approved by the competent authority in 2001 and had statutory force.

The Auroville Foundation Act, 1988, is a special act with overriding effect over other laws in case of inconsistency, further rendering the NGT's directions without jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) had clarified that the Auroville Township Project was under construction before the EIA Notifications of 1994 and 2004 and thus did not require environmental clearance as a new project under the 2006 notification. The NGT brushed aside this stand without proper material.

The NGT's directions to prepare a proper township plan and obtain environmental clearance fell outside its jurisdiction when no substantial environmental question arising from the implementation of Schedule I enactments was established.

While the "Precautionary Principle" and "Polluter Pays Principle" are part of environmental law, the right to development is also a priority, necessitating a balance through "Sustainable Development".

Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Between: THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION VS NAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS 2025 INSC 347
Date of Judgment: 17-03-2025