Environmental Law

Samarth Trust v. Union of India

2010 SCC OnLine Del 2127

Facts

Environmental clearance was granted for an asbestos-related industrial project in Uttarakhand.
Samarth Trust challenged the clearance on the ground that the public hearing was defective.
It alleged that:
complete information was not made available;
local objectors were prevented from speaking;
violence and disorder disrupted participation;
construction had begun before clearance.
The project proponent and authorities argued that:
advance notice had been given;
the relevant documents were available;
more than a thousand people attended;
many participants expressed their views;
disruption was caused by a limited group.
Independent inquiries did not substantiate the allegation that the entire hearing was manipulated or abandoned.

What makes public consultation under the EIA Notification legally meaningful.
Whether disruption or disagreement at a hearing necessarily invalidates the process.
Whether the facts established that affected persons were denied a fair opportunity to participate.

Public consultation is an essential component of environmental decision-making.
It operates as:
participatory justice;
a social audit;
a method of bringing local knowledge before experts.
A lawful hearing requires:
adequate notice;
access to understandable project information;
opportunity to express objections;
accurate recording and forwarding of concerns.
Courts examine substantive fairness rather than demanding perfect procedural order.
A hearing is not invalid merely because it is noisy, contentious or opposed by some participants.

The High Court strongly affirmed the importance of public participation.
Communities living near a proposed industry may possess information that technical reports overlook, including:
local water use;
wind conditions;
agricultural dependence;
existing health problems;
social vulnerability.
Their participation cannot be treated as an obstacle to project approval.
However, the Court distinguished the legal importance of consultation from the factual allegation that no meaningful consultation occurred.
On the evidence, the hearing had:
attracted substantial attendance;
continued for a significant period;
allowed several persons to speak;
recorded objections and responses.
The presence of disorder did not establish that the statutory process had completely failed.
A group’s attempt to interrupt proceedings could not automatically invalidate participation by all other attendees.
The Court also examined the allegation of pre-clearance construction.
It was not satisfied that prohibited project implementation had been proved merely because some preliminary site activity was alleged.
The burden remained on the challenger to demonstrate a material violation.
The judgment therefore adopted a two-part approach:
public consultation must be real and informed;
courts will not cancel a clearance on broad allegations where the record shows substantial compliance.
It nevertheless cautioned authorities that public hearings should be conducted with sensitivity and proper disclosure.

The Delhi High Court upheld the environmental clearance.
It found insufficient evidence that the public hearing had been rendered meaningless or that interested persons had been systematically excluded.
The Court described public consultation as a vital democratic and environmental safeguard.
Its refusal to interfere rested on the particular evidence of substantial participation—not on any dilution of the public-hearing requirement.
Use this case for: public hearings as participatory justice, together with the principle of substantive rather than mechanical procedural review.