Environmental Clearance for Bengaluru Peripheral Ring Road: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment

The case before the Supreme Court dealt with a significant environmental dispute regarding the Bengaluru Development Authority’s (BDA) proposed Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project. The case arose from a challenge to the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the project, which was quashed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) due to deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

Background of the Case

The BDA initiated the PRR project to ease traffic congestion and improve connectivity in Bengaluru. A preliminary notification for land acquisition was issued in 2005, followed by a final notification in 2007. The BDA applied for an EC under the EIA Notification 2006, and the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted approval in 2014.

However, environmental groups and affected parties challenged the EC before the NGT, citing procedural lapses, outdated environmental data, and failure to account for forest land and tree felling. The NGT ruled in their favor and directed the BDA to conduct a fresh rapid EIA before proceeding with the project.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The BDA raised the following arguments before the Supreme Court:

• “The PRR project was conceptualized before the EIA Notification 2006 came into effect; thus, the requirement for an EC should not apply retrospectively.”
• “The PRR is not a National or State Highway under the respective laws, so it should not be subject to the EIA Notification’s clearance requirements.”
• “The SEIAA granted the EC after a comprehensive assessment, and the NGT had no basis to interfere with the decision.”
• “The alleged deficiencies in the EIA report were minor and did not warrant a fresh impact assessment.”

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including environmental activists and local residents, countered with the following points:

• “The PRR project falls within the scope of the EIA Notification 2006 as an expressway, requiring prior EC.”
• “The EIA report was based on outdated environmental data collected in 2009-2010, making it unreliable for decision-making in 2014.”
• “The EIA report failed to disclose the impact on forest land, with contradictions about whether forest clearance was required.”
• “The number of trees to be felled was grossly understated, with official reports indicating over 16,000 trees at risk, whereas the BDA claimed only 500 trees would be affected.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made several crucial observations on the applicability of environmental laws and the procedural lapses in the EC process:

“If the project proponent has failed to conduct the EIA process in compliance with the prescribed statutory framework, the EC cannot be upheld. Environmental governance mandates strict adherence to procedural safeguards.”

On the issue of outdated data, the Court noted:

“The use of primary environmental data that is more than three years old is impermissible under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF-CC). The delay in conducting public consultation and finalizing the EIA report renders the entire process flawed.”

Regarding the felling of trees, the Court found significant discrepancies in the BDA’s submissions:

“The project proponent’s own documents indicate that over 16,000 trees would be felled, yet the EIA report states only 519 trees will be removed. Such material misrepresentation undermines the credibility of the environmental assessment.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s order directing a fresh rapid EIA for the PRR project. The Court issued the following directions:

• The BDA must conduct a new EIA with updated environmental data and comply with the MoEF-CC guidelines.
• A sector-specific accredited EIA consultant must be engaged for the assessment.
• All necessary statutory clearances, including forest clearance, must be obtained before the SEIAA reconsiders granting EC.
• The State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) must rigorously evaluate the new EIA and provide detailed reasons for its recommendation to the SEIAA.
• The BDA must ensure that the PRR project does not pose risks to petroleum pipelines running along parts of the proposed alignment.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching consequences for large infrastructure projects in India. It reinforces the principle that procedural compliance with environmental laws is non-negotiable. The judgment also establishes key precedents:

• Environmental clearances must be based on contemporary and accurate data.
• Misrepresentation of environmental impact, particularly concerning forest land and tree felling, will not be condoned.
• Regulatory authorities like SEIAA and SEAC must ensure due diligence in evaluating EIA reports.
• Public consultation and stakeholder participation are essential components of the environmental clearance process.

The ruling ensures that while infrastructure development is necessary for urban growth, it must not come at the cost of environmental sustainability. The decision mandates greater accountability from project proponents and strengthens environmental governance in India.

Petitioner Name: Bengaluru Development Authority.
Respondent Name: Mr. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 17-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bengaluru Developmen vs Mr. Sudhakar Hegde & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 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