Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India - Mopa Airport Case II

(2020) 12 SCC 1

Citation
(2020) 12 SCC 1
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
16 Jan 2020
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud & Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Facts

  • Following the 2019 judgment, the EAC reconsidered the Mopa Airport proposal.
  • It examined additional material concerning:
  • biodiversity;
  • trees;
  • water;
  • drainage;
  • carbon emissions;
  • local ecological conditions.
  • The EAC recommended continuation of the project with a large number of additional conditions.
  • These included:
  • biodiversity conservation;
  • water-management safeguards;
  • monitoring;
  • a zero-carbon or low-carbon programme;
  • institutional supervision.
  • Objections were raised that:
  • the fresh appraisal remained inadequate;
  • some experts lacked independence;
  • the conditions did not cure the original defects.
  • The matter returned to the Supreme Court.

Issue

  • Whether the reconsideration genuinely complied with the 2019 directions.
  • Whether the additional safeguards were sufficient to lift the suspension.
  • Whether objections to the composition and expertise of the EAC invalidated the fresh decision.

Rule

  • Where a clearance is suspended for procedural and substantive defects, the authority must undertake genuine reconsideration rather than mechanically repeat its earlier conclusion.
  • Courts examine:
  • whether relevant material was considered;
  • whether reasons were recorded;
  • whether meaningful additional safeguards were imposed.
  • Judicial review focuses upon legality and rationality of expert decision-making.
  • Courts ordinarily do not substitute their own environmental design where a competent expert body has lawfully reconsidered the matter.

Application

  • The Court compared the fresh appraisal with the deficiencies identified in 2019.
  • It found that the EAC had now considered substantially more material.
  • The additional conditions were not merely routine.
  • They addressed:
  • conservation of local flora and fauna;
  • water recharge;
  • construction impacts;
  • compensatory planting;
  • carbon management;
  • continuous compliance.
  • The Court accepted that every environmental risk could not be eliminated from a major infrastructure project.
  • The legal requirement was to identify, minimise and monitor those risks through enforceable conditions.
  • The argument concerning expert composition was examined, but the Court did not find sufficient material to invalidate the entire process.
  • It also considered the role of post-clearance monitoring.
  • Environmental safeguards cannot remain promises on paper.
  • Independent technical supervision was therefore essential.
  • NEERI was given an important monitoring role.
  • The Court linked permission to proceed with compliance with:
  • the original EC conditions;
  • the conditions imposed by the NGT;
  • the new EAC conditions.
  • Thus, lifting the suspension did not erase the project proponent’s environmental obligations.
  • It increased them.
  • The decision illustrates the difference between:
  • curing an appraisal defect before construction resumes; and
  • granting an unrestricted post-facto approval after environmental damage.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court lifted the suspension of the environmental clearance.
  • Construction was permitted to proceed subject to the complete set of original and additional conditions.
  • NEERI was directed to monitor compliance and report violations.
  • The project proponent remained bound by the enhanced ecological and carbon-related safeguards.
  • The Court concluded that the reconsideration sufficiently complied with the 2019 order.
  • This second judgment therefore validates the project only after corrective expert appraisal and enforceable monitoring.
  • Use this case for: curing defects through genuine reappraisal and allowing a project to proceed under strengthened, monitored conditions.