Environmental Clearance Not Required for NH 45-A Expansion: Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of The National Highways Authority of India vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Anr., addressed a significant dispute over the necessity of environmental clearance for the expansion of National Highway 45-A from Villuppuram to Nagapattinam. The High Court of Madras had earlier ruled that environmental clearance was required, but the Supreme Court set aside this decision, clarifying the conditions under which such clearance is mandated.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) initiated a project to expand NH-45A as part of the Bharatmala Pariyojana. The project involved widening and improving the existing highway in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, dividing it into four packages:
- Package I: Villuppuram to Puducherry (29.000 km)
- Package II: Puducherry to Poondiankuppam (38.000 km)
- Package III: Poondiankuppam to Sattanathapuram (56.800 km)
- Package IV: Sattanathapuram to Nagapattinam (55.755 km)
The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) approved the project in March 2018, and agreements were signed with the concessionaires. However, public interest litigants and affected farmers filed writ petitions in the High Court, arguing that the project was being undertaken without obtaining the necessary environmental clearance.
High Court Ruling
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and directed the NHAI to obtain environmental clearance before proceeding with the project. The court issued several directives, including:
- Suspension of the project until environmental clearance was obtained.
- Conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study.
- Obtaining Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for certain locations.
- Ensuring environmental viability before resuming the project.
- Implementing reafforestation measures, including the planting of native trees.
- Monitoring compliance through a court-appointed committee.
Legal Issues Raised
- Whether prior environmental clearance was required for the NH-45A expansion.
- Interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006 and its amendments.
- Whether segmenting the highway project into packages was a deliberate strategy to bypass environmental regulations.
Petitioner’s Arguments (NHAI)
- The project did not require environmental clearance as the additional right of way was within the limits specified under the EIA Notification.
- Only highway expansions exceeding 100 km with land acquisition over 40 meters (existing alignments) or 60 meters (realignments and bypasses) required clearance.
- The segmentation into four packages was due to administrative and financial feasibility, not an attempt to evade environmental scrutiny.
- Previous government reviews had confirmed that highway expansions of this nature did not need environmental clearance.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The segmentation of the project was a deliberate attempt to avoid environmental scrutiny.
- The total length of the expansion exceeded 100 km, requiring mandatory clearance under the EIA Notification.
- The project could have significant ecological impacts, including deforestation and displacement of local communities.
- Past projects had failed to meet reafforestation commitments, raising concerns about environmental management.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court analyzed the EIA Notification of 2006, which requires prior environmental clearance for highway expansions exceeding 100 km and involving substantial land acquisition. The Court noted:
“Expansion of a National Highway greater than 100 km requires prior environmental clearance only if it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses.”
The Court also rejected the argument that segmenting the project into smaller packages was an attempt to evade environmental regulations, stating:
“The division of the project was for administrative reasons, ensuring smoother execution. There is no evidence to suggest that segmentation was a strategy to circumvent environmental laws.”
Further, the Court ruled that the right of way (including toll plazas, service roads, and drainage systems) must be considered within the defined limits.
Final Judgment
- The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that environmental clearance was not required for the NH-45A expansion.
- The NHAI was directed to adhere to the EIA Notification of 2006 and its amendments strictly.
- The Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change was instructed to set up an expert committee to review the segmentation of highway projects.
- The NHAI was mandated to fulfill reafforestation obligations by planting ten trees for every tree felled.
Implications of the Judgment
The ruling has significant implications for infrastructure development in India:
- Clarity on Environmental Clearance: The judgment clarifies that highway expansions do not automatically require clearance unless they meet specific criteria.
- Prevention of Unnecessary Delays: By setting a clear threshold for environmental clearance, the ruling helps streamline highway projects.
- Protection of Environmental Rights: While ruling in favor of the NHAI, the Court reinforced the need for reafforestation and environmental safeguards.
- Expert Review of Segmentation: The formation of an expert committee ensures future projects adhere to both development and environmental standards.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in The National Highways Authority of India vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Anr. is a landmark ruling balancing infrastructure development with environmental concerns. By interpreting the EIA Notification strictly, the Court has provided clarity on when environmental clearance is necessary, ensuring that projects like NH-45A can proceed without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles while maintaining ecological accountability.
Petitioner Name: The National Highways Authority of India.Respondent Name: Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Anr..Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi.Place Of Incident: Villuppuram to Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.Judgment Date: 19-01-2021.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: the-national-highway-vs-pandarinathan-govind-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-01-2021.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments
See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
