Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 29-03-2019 in case of petitioner name Hanuman Laxman Aroskar, Federa vs Union of India
| |

Environmental Clearance for Mopa Airport: Supreme Court’s Critical Review and Directives

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, along with the case of Federation of Rainbow Warriors v. Union of India, challenging the environmental clearance (EC) granted for the construction of a greenfield airport at Mopa, Goa. The Court’s decision scrutinized the process of environmental clearance, emphasizing the need for transparency, adherence to legal norms, and environmental governance.

The petitioners contended that the EC was granted based on incomplete and misleading information provided by the project proponent, the State of Goa. The main concerns raised included the large-scale felling of trees, the impact on ecologically sensitive zones (ESZs), and the absence of baseline environmental data from Maharashtra, despite the airport’s close proximity to its border.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Ms. Anitha Shenoy, argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was defective in multiple ways, including:

  • Failure to disclose that 54,676 trees would be felled, instead misleadingly stating that the area contained “only a few trees, mainly bushes.”
  • Non-disclosure of ecologically sensitive zones in the State of Maharashtra.
  • Failure to conduct environmental sampling in Maharashtra, despite the airport’s impact extending to the region.
  • Ignoring wildlife presence, particularly the impact on species such as the Indian Peafowl and the Dipcadi concanense plant.
  • Misrepresentation of public hearing objections as being limited to employment concerns, when substantial environmental issues were raised.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondents, including the State of Goa and the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), defended the EC process by arguing that:

  • The EIA report covered all relevant aspects, including biological and socio-economic impacts.
  • The airport project was crucial for Goa’s development, particularly to support tourism.
  • Baseline data for Maharashtra was indirectly covered as the study area extended to a 10 km radius, which included the state.
  • The felling of trees was accounted for through a compensatory afforestation plan.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, ruled that the EC process suffered from major deficiencies:

  • The project proponent had made a misleading representation regarding the number of trees to be felled.
  • The EIA report failed to recognize ESZs in the study area, thereby neglecting key ecological concerns.
  • The EAC did not properly apply its mind to the environmental concerns raised, including the public consultation process.
  • The NGT failed to conduct a proper merits review and merely deferred to the decision of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).

Directions Issued by the Court

In light of these findings, the Court ordered:

  • The EAC must revisit its recommendations for granting the EC, addressing the environmental concerns highlighted in the judgment.
  • The EAC must complete this review within one month.
  • The EC granted on October 28, 2015, shall remain suspended until the review is completed.
  • The EAC must impose necessary safeguards, including measures to mitigate impacts on forests, water bodies, and biodiversity.
  • The State of Goa or MoEFCC must submit the revised EAC report before the Court for final orders.
  • No other court or tribunal shall entertain challenges to the revised EAC report, ensuring judicial finality.

Environmental Rule of Law

The judgment also discussed the concept of Environmental Rule of Law, emphasizing the importance of transparency, public participation, and adherence to legal norms in environmental decision-making. The Court reinforced the principle that economic development cannot come at the cost of environmental degradation.

Conclusion

This ruling sets a precedent for future infrastructure projects, underscoring the judiciary’s role in ensuring that environmental clearances are granted only after a thorough, lawful, and scientifically sound review. The decision safeguards both ecological integrity and sustainable development, ensuring that future generations are not deprived of their environmental heritage.


Petitioner Name: Hanuman Laxman Aroskar, Federation of Rainbow Warriors.
Respondent Name: Union of India.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Mopa, Goa.
Judgment Date: 29-03-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Hanuman Laxman Arosk vs Union of India Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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

Similar Posts