India: Environment – Getting It Right

Last Updated: 26 November 2018
Article by Manu Nair


The present article deals with the issues and concerns arising out of grant or non - grant of environmental clearances for projects in and around eco sensitive areas of the country. The battle between environmental protection and development is a complex issue for which there may not always be a perfect solution. Through this article the author endeavours to provide a solution oriented approach to address the thorny issues on this subject in the context of a recent case before the Supreme Court1.

Background /Issues

The environment issue in question pertains to the clearance / non clearance of a project (multi-storey residential complex) which was to come up near the backwaters in Kerala. The area in question fell within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Cochin (the "Corporation"). The project proponent obtained the relevant building permit from the Corporation under the prevalent building rules and other necessary permissions, such as, NOC from the State Pollution Control Board and the Fire and Rescue Department and height clearance from the Indian Navy.

As far as the environment clearance is concerned, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), which is the nodal authority for granting clearance, issued a Notification under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") which required all new projects to obtain prior environment clearance from the Central Government or the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ("SEIAA") constituted by the Central government under the Act. The said Notification also provided, in Para 8 thereof 2, that the SEIAA would base its decision on the recommendations of the state or union territory level Expert Appraisal Committee ("EAC/SEAC") to be constituted in terms of the Notification.

The project in question was examined by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee ("CEAC") in the beginning and during such examination it was proposed that since some part of the project fell under the Coastal Regulation Zone ("CRZ"), the details of the project may be examined by the CRZ Committee of the Environment Ministry and a separate clearance be acquired for CRZ. At this juncture, it may be relevant to briefly understand the CRZ position in India as set out hereunder:

Under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 of India, a notification was issued in February 1991for regulation of activities in the coastal area by the MoEF. As per the notification, the coastal land up to 500m from the High Tide Line (HTL) and a stage of 100m along banks of creeks, estuaries, backwater and rivers subject to tidal fluctuations, is called the Coastal Regulation Zone(CRZ). CRZ along the country has been placed in four categories ie. CRZ 1 to 4.

Under the CRZ Notification of 1991, coastal areas have been classified as CRZ-1, CRZ-2, CRZ-3, and CRZ-4.

  • CRZ-1: These are ecologically sensitive areas these are essential in maintaining the ecosystem of the coast. They lie between low and high tide line. Exploration of natural gas and extraction of salt are permitted
  • CRZ-2: Areas which are developed up to the shoreline and fall within municipal limits wherein construction and building activity is possible
  • CRZ-3: This includes Rural and urban localities which fall outside the ambit of CRZ 1 and 2. Only certain activities related to agriculture even some public facilities are allowed in this zone.
  • CRZ-4: This lies in the aquatic area up to territorial limits. Fishing and allied activities are permitted in this zone. Solid waste should be let off in this zone.

The Ministry has an approved list of authorized agencies competent to issue CRZ clearance.

The project proponent accordingly made an application to one of the authorized agencies, which in turn made a positive recommendation that the land was situated in a CRZ- 2 area (Areas which are developed up to the shoreline and fall within municipal limits wherein construction and building activity is possible) and that no area was in CRZ- 1 (Ecologically sensitive areas, essential in maintaining ecosystem of the coast. These lie between the low tide line and high tide line wherein only activities pertaining to exploration of natural gas and extraction of salt is permitted.), or close to it. Post the said clearance, the project proponent started construction activity and things were going smoothly till the time the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority ("KCZMA") intervened, seeking an explanation for having started construction without obtaining the necessary permission / approval / clearance from it. However, subsequently the same authority (KCZMA) decided to recommend the project proposal to the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The matter did not end there. Pursuant to a further site visit by the KCZMA, there were adverse comments / recommendations made by it on certain environmental aspects alleged to have been violated by the project proponent. However, interestingly, even whilst noting that there were procedural violations committed by the proponent, it recommended imposition of penalty alone and nothing more.

It may be pertinent to point out that the authorised agency for giving CRZ clearance which had earlier given a positive recommendation to the project proponent also did a turn around and submitted adverse reports on certain environmental violations carried out by the proponent.

The matter thereafter proceeded to court on the basis of a petition filed in the High Court by one of the residents of the area where the project was to come up, seeking to prohibit the project proponent from carrying out further construction. Interestingly, the said petition was filed by the allegedly affected resident nearly three years after the commencement of construction. It may be noted that the area in question where the project was to come up was already well developed with many similar multi-storey apartments.

During the pendency of the court proceedings, the SEIAA issued an integrated CRZ-Environment clearance to the project. Despite this, the High court in its wisdom set aside the said clearance and directed demolition of the project in question. The High Court ruling was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court by the project proponent. During the hearing before the Division Bench, the Environment Ministry was asked by the court to explain its stand on the issue of the project. The Environment Ministry in its affidavit clearly stated that the project proponent had adhered to all the conditions laid down by SEIAA and had not violated any of the provisions and that the construction was technically as per provisions of the notification of CRZ and the Environment Impact Assessment. Yet, the Division Bench held that the project proponent had violated the environmental conditions and that the construction was illegal. It however set aside the direction for demolition and instead directed the project proponent to deposit a monetary sum as penalty/fine.

KCZMA as well as the project proponent filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the findings of alleged violations committed by the project proponent on various grounds. One of the most important grounds on which the Supreme Court overturned the High Court judgment was on the issue regarding the inconsistencies and flip-flops of the authorities/regulators in dealing with the environmental issues. The said inconsistencies and flip-flops were most exemplified by the two affidavits filed by the Environment Ministry, both of which were in complete variance with each other. The first affidavit affirmed the appraisal done by the SEIAA and the second took a complete u- turn by stating that both the CRZ as well as the Environment notification had been violated and the project had come up without obtaining prior clearance.

Analysis of Issues

In view of the abovementioned background and facts a serious question arises, namely, accountability in respect of inconsistencies and flip flops played by the regulators in dealing with the environmental issues. This question deserves to be answered by laying down clear guidelines which the regulatory authorities and the project proponents can follow to ensure there is no confusion in understanding and following the law. While development is necessary, it must also be in sync with the preservation of the environment and must ensure that environmental issues are addressed. Therefore, greater clarity in the guidelines, rules and regulations will go a long way in ensuring that the project proponents / big developers are aware of all the relevant rules and regulations to be complied with before embarking on projects such as the one in the present case.

The major area of concern in the present case was the complete lack of clarity on the part of the authorities concerned. It was incumbent upon each authority / agency examining the proposal of the proponent to have given a clear and unambiguous report or finding at the first instance when it was examining the project, so that the project proponent was under no illusion or confusion with regard to the legal status of the same. However, each report was at variance with the other, thereby creating a complete sense of uncertainty and confusion in the minds of all concerned.

It is therefore critical that in any matter concerning environmentally sensitive issues, the first and foremost requirement should be that the law and the regulations are clearly spelt out so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever nor any scope for interpretation of the said regulations. In other words, the endeavour should be to ensure that for each and every step the laws/regulations should be set out in black and white.

Insofar as the jurisprudence with regard to the environmental issues is concerned, the law as set out by the Supreme Court is very clear. It has clearly held that the practice of regularizing unauthorised construction in areas where admittedly there is a clear prohibition is unacceptable, especially when such construction is sought to be effected in CRZ areas3. The Supreme Court has taken a very strict approach to interpretations of the CRZ notification and has time and again held that the said notification has been issued in the interest of protecting environment and ecology in the coastal areas and construction raised in violation of such regulations cannot be condoned4.

The judgment rendered by the Supreme court in the present case in its conclusion has rightly stressed on the fact that:

49. We would also like to emphasise that there has to be undoubtedly greater clarity on the processes and a better understanding between various authorities so that developers are not left in the lurch — violators have to be punished but it cannot be that the authorities continue to do a flip-flop-flip putting the large investments at stake in a jeopardy. This is what appears to have happened in the present case.

50. We also make it clear that in the future, wherever permissions are required to come and are to be obtained before commencement of construction, it would be no answer that activity can be carried on without obtaining the permissions. Simultaneously, the permissions itself are envisaged in a time-bound schedule and not through improvement of cases by authorities running into years. Thus, from the inception itself, there should be clarity on what is permissible and what is not.

In view of what the Supreme Court has stated hereinabove, it is incumbent upon all the regulatory authorities dealing with the environment to ensure that all issues pertaining to clearance and approvals are addressed not only in a time bound manner but also with clarity at each step, especially when it comes to either rejecting or granting permission for projects.

Suggestions /Way forward

  1. It would be worthwhile to re-examine from time to time, the competence of the various authorised agencies identified by the Environment Ministry to recommend clearance of projects, inasmuch as the Ministry depends solely on their recommendations while scrutinizing a project and giving its go-ahead.
  2. It would also be in the interest of all to have a greater scrutiny to ensure that petitions which are filed in various courts by so called public spirited persons or environmentalist groups who have a so called interest, are bona fide and are not filed for publicity or as a front for corporate rivalry. Before a court or authority launches into a full blown investigation of the allegations, it should first satisfy itself about the bona fides of the person/group filing the complaint. In case it is not satisfied on the genuineness of the complainants / petitioners it should impose huge costs on the complainant.
  3. The Environment Ministry should also set down clear parameters or criteria on the basis of which there is a proper scientific way of examining evidence (for example, land use maps etc.), given that technology has changed over the years and there is a large amount of scientific data available for examination.
  4. Although a time consuming exercise, it would be useful if the authorities concerned, after examining a particular proposal of a project proponent and after having found it fit for recommendation, list out and continuously engage with the project proponent on the various compliances to be done post the recommendations. This will go a long way in ensuring that even post recommendation of a project there is continuous monitoring by the authorities on each and every aspect to ensure that the project is environment compliant for all times to come.


1. The Secretary, Kerala State Coastal Management Authority vs. DLF Universal Limited (2018) 2 SCC 203

2. "8. Grant or rejection of prior environmental clearance (EC).—(i) The Regulatory Authority shall consider the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the applicant within forty-five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment Report, and where Environmental Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided below.


(iii) In the event that the decision of the Regulatory Authority is not communicated to the applicant within the period specified in sub-paras (i) or (ii) above, as applicable, the applicant may proceed as if the environment clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the Regulatory Authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned."

3. Anil Hoble vs. Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Ors. (2016) 10 SCC 701

4. Piedade Filomena Gonsalves vs. State of Goa and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 445

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions