National Green Tribunal Order On Environmental Clearances For Real Estate Projects

The Environment Impact Assessment (“EIA“) Notification 2006 was amended on 9th December 20161 (EIA Amendment, 2016) with a view to streamline the permissions for buildings and construction sector so that affordable housing can be provided to weaker sections in urban area under the scheme ‘Housing for All by 2022’2. However, multiple applications were filed to challenge this amendment with the Principal bench of National Green Tribunal (“NGT“)3 praying that the exemptions granted from Environmental Clearance for buildings and construction projects would be a huge retrograde step in the way to environmental conservation and would cause irreversible damage to the environment. On 8th December 20174 the Hon’ble NGT decided the applications through a single Order (“said Order“) wherein it upheld the Principle of Non-regression and took recourse to the doctrine of severability to quash the following provisions of the EIA Amendment, 2016:

  1. Clause 14(8) which provided for constitution of Environment Cell to be set up by the State governments or local authorities for compliance and monitoring and to ensure environmental planning within their jurisdiction;
  2. Appendix-XVI pertaining to constitution and functioning of Environmental Cell;
  3. Clause 14 para 4 exempting residential buildings up to 1,50,000 square meters to seek Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 from the State Pollution Control Boards;

The Principle of Non-regression stipulates that ‘environmental law should not be modified to the detriment of environmental protection’. Keeping in mind India’s commitment to safeguarding environment, the NGT directed Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (“MOEF&CC“) to reexamine the EIA Amendment, 2016 in the light of its Order. The following points summarize the ruling:

  1. The Hon’ble NGT noted that the Environmental Cell, primary duty of which is to protect the environment, would have to work in subordination to a State/local authority whose primary object is to permit development. Thus, possibility of conflicting interest arising in the functioning of the local authority and the Environmental Cell cannot be ruled out. It would also disturb the federal structure laid down under the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Hon’ble NGT quashed the provisions for formation of the Environmental Cell by the State government or local authorities.
  2. With reference to exemption of Consent to Establish and Consent to Order for certain residential buildings, the Hon’ble NGT noted that the MOEF&CC, a delegated authority under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 cannot render provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 (both Central legislations) as inapplicable and take away powers of the Pollution Control Boards under the said Acts. Such legislation suffered from the vires of excessive legislation.
  3. The Hon’ble NGT observed that the EIA Amendment, 2016 ignored some essential features like source of water, source of raw material, urban ecology, provision of no development zone and construction face impacts. These aspects have a direct bearing on protection of environment and keeping in line with the Principle of Sustainable Development.

Pursuant to the said Order, the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra raised query regarding amendments made prior to the EIA Amendment, 2016 and regarding appraisal of applications till further notification is issued by the MOEF&CC. The Law & Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, in the wake of the said Order has opined that the State Expert Appraisal Committee (“SEAC“) and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (“SEIAA“) are supposed to implement the EIA Notification, 2006 as it was before the EIA Amendment, 2016 and assume that Clause 14 (inserted by the EIA Amendment, 2016) is not at all inserted5.

In the aftermath of the said Order and the opinion given by Law & Judiciary Department, the SEAC and SEIAA along with Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and all Special Planning Authorities were directed not to process any permission to projects with built-up area between 20,000 sq. mtrs and 1,50,000 sq. mtrs by integrating the environmental clearance conditions as per the EIA Amendment, 2016 in the EIA Notification, 2006. Though the EIA Amendment, 2016 sought to ease and expedite the Environment Clearance process for real estate projects, it could not stand the scrutiny of law.  


3 NGT Original Application No. 677 of 2016 Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity vs. Union of India and ors.

4 NGT Order in 2016 Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity vs. Union of India and ors. –

5 Excerpts from Government of Maharashtra Circular No. NGT-2017/CR-45/SEIAA dated 29th January 2018

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.

Media Coverage

About Dhaval Vussonji

Ask a question

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Legal Disclaimer

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the “AGREE” button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Dhaval Vussonji & Associates for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Dhaval Vussonji & Associates or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledgesite. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.


This knowledgesite ( is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Dhaval Vussonji & Associates (DVA) does not warrant that the information contained on this knowledgesite is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

DVA further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this knowledgesite, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner of this knowledgesite does not intend links from this site to other internet knowledgesites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. DVA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.

This knowledgesite is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the knowledgesite should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the relevant country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledgesite does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this knowledgesite should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.

Furthermore, the owner of this knowledgesite does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this knowledgesite or in a country/state where this knowledgesite fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.