Supreme Court Strikes Down Centre’s Exemption For Educational Buildings From Environmental Clearance

The Supreme Court today struck down a part of the Centre’s January 29, 2025 notification that had exempted construction projects related to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels from obtaining prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that this exemption, contained in Note 1 to Clause 8(a) of the amended schedule, was arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of the Environment Protection Act. However, the rest of the notification was upheld.

“We see no reason behind the exemption of 2006 notification for the industry and educational buildings. If any construction activity of an area more than 20000 sqm is carried out, it will naturally have an effect on the environment, even if the building is for educational purpose. We see no reason to discriminate the other buildings with the buildings constructed for industrial or educational purposes. It is common knowledge that education is no more a merely service-oriented profession. It is common knowledge that education has nowadays also become a flourishing industry”, the Court observed.

The Court had earlier stayed the operation of the notification in a public interest litigation filed by the NGO Vanashakti. The stay also applied to an Office Memorandum dated January 30, 2025, which had clarified that the amended notification would also apply to Kerala.

Under the EIA regime, any building or construction project with a built-up area equal to or greater than 20,000 square metres required prior environmental clearance. The impugned notification had amended Clause 8 of the schedule to the 2006 EIA Notification.

It introduced Note 1 to Clause 8(a), stating that projects such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions would not require prior environmental clearance, provided they ensured measures such as sustainable environmental management, solid and liquid waste management, and rainwater harvesting.

The Supreme Court observed that it has consistently held that natural resources must be held in trust for future generations, and development must be balanced with environmental protection. “A country cannot progress unless development takes place. This Court in a catena of decisions has adopted the principle of sustainable development”, the Court added.

It noted that construction of buildings even for educational or industrial purposes on areas exceeding 20,000 square metres would naturally have an environmental impact and could not be exempted.

The Court rejected the Centre’s justification that there is a guideline to ensure such projects would follow environmental safeguards. It noted that no mechanism had been provided for impact assessment by an expert body like the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

“We are of the view that the exemption of applicability of the 2006 notification to the projects and activities qua industrial sheds, schools, colleges, hostels, and educational institutions does not appear to be in tune with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act”, the Court observed.

The EIA Notification, 2006 categorises projects as Category A and B, with Category B projects requiring clearance from SEIAAs and A projects from the Central Government. The notification has a General Condition that any Category B project located within 10 km of protected areas, critically polluted areas, eco-sensitive areas, or inter-state and international boundaries would be treated as a Category A project.

The impugned amendment provided that this General Condition would not apply to the projects listed at Clauses 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA Schedule.

Supporting the amendment, Additional Solicitor General Aushwarya Bhati submitted that it was not feasible for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to assess all such projects nationwide, given the high number of construction projects in the country.

The Court accepted this, observing that SEIAAs, being expert bodies constituted by the Centre, could effectively carry out this function at the state level. The Court dismissed the petitioner’s contention that the centre cannot remove applicability of the general condition to projects in Clauses 8(a) and 8(b).

“It is clear that wherever the delegated legislation (EIA Notification) required the general conditions to apply, the notification specifically provided for the same. It can clearly be seen that clause 8(a) and 8(b) do not provide for applicability of general conditions, however, they provide for some other conditions”, the Court observed.

The petition filed by Vanashakti had challenged both the January 29, 2025 notification and the subsequent Office Memorandum. It argued that this was the fourth attempt by the government to dilute the EIA regime for building and construction projects, following similar efforts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 that had been stayed or quashed by courts.

The petition also highlighted that the exemption would prevent proper appraisal of projects located near eco-sensitive zones, protected areas under the Wildlife Protection Act, and critically polluted areas. It claimed that this violated Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, since no reasons had been provided for the exemption.

Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the petition, upholding the impugned notification while setting aside Note 1 to clause 8(a).

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the petitioner.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 166/2025 Diary No. 8830 / 2025

Case Title – Vanashakti v. Union of India

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}