SC Drops Hammer on Exemptions—Education and Industry Must Play by Eco Rules
(Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
In a landmark judgment reinforcing the primacy of environmental protection, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key provision of the Centre’s January 29, 2025 notification that had exempted certain large-scale construction projects—specifically industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels—from obtaining prior environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006. The Verdict Exemption Held Arbitrary and Unconstitutional. A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Chandran ruled that the exemption, contained in Note 1 to Clause 8A of the amended schedule, was arbitrary and ran contrary to the objectives of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. While the broader notification was upheld, the court decisively struck down the specific clause that allowed educational and industrial buildings to bypass environmental scrutiny.
“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 purpose. It is common knowledge that education is no more a merely service-oriented profession. It has nowadays also become a flourishing industry.
The judgment came in response to a public interest litigation filed by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, which had challenged both the January 29 notification and a subsequent Office Memorandum dated January 30, 2025. The memorandum had clarified that the exemption would also apply to the state of Kerala. The court had earlier stayed the operation of both documents pending final adjudication.
Environmental Impact Cannot Be Ignored. Under the EIA regime, any building or construction project with a built-up area of 20,000 square metres or more is required to obtain prior environmental clearance. The amended notification had introduced Note 1 to Clause 8A, which exempted projects related to industrial sheds and educational infrastructure from this requirement—provided they implemented measures like sustainable environmental management, solid and liquid waste handling, and rainwater harvesting.
“We are of the view that exemption of applicability of the 2006 notification 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.
However, the Supreme Court found this exemption untenable. It emphasized that construction projects of such scale, regardless of their purpose, inevitably have significant environmental impacts. The court rejected the Centre’s argument that guidelines and safeguards were sufficient, noting the absence of any mechanism for independent impact assessment by expert bodies such as the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
Upholding Sustainable Development. The bench reiterated the court’s long-standing commitment to the principle of sustainable development, stating:
“Natural resources must be preserved in the interest of future generations. Development must be balanced with environmental protection. A country cannot progress unless development takes place, but it must not come at the cost of ecological degradation.”
The court also dismissed the Centre’s justification that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) lacked the capacity to assess the overwhelming number of construction projects nationwide. It held that SEIAAs, being expert bodies constituted by the Centre, were well-equipped to handle such assessments at the state level.
The Legal Landscape and Past Attempts.The EIA Notification of 2006 classifies projects into Category A and B, with Category B projects requiring clearance from SEIAA and Category A from the central government. A general condition mandates that any Category B project located within 10 km of protected areas, critically polluted zones, eco-sensitive regions, or interstate/international boundaries be treated as Category A. The 2025 amendment had controversially removed this condition for projects listed under Clauses 8A and 8B.
Vanashakti’s petition argued that this was the fourth attempt by the government to dilute environmental safeguards for construction projects—following similar efforts in 2014, 2016, and 2018, all of which had been stayed or quashed by courts. The NGO contended that the exemption violated Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, as it lacked any stated rationale and would prevent proper appraisal of projects near ecologically sensitive zones.
The Petition was field by Supreme Court A-o-R Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan appeared for the petitioner.
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court partially allowed Vanashakti’s petition. While it upheld the broader notification, it struck down Note 1 to Clause 8A, thereby reinstating the requirement for environmental clearance for large-scale educational and industrial construction projects.
This decision marks a significant reaffirmation of environmental accountability and sends a clear message: development must not sidestep ecological responsibility.
