Supreme Court suspends Environmental Clearance for Mopa airport development, orders fresh EAC review citing inadequate environmental assessment

SC directed EAC to revisit Environmental Clearance conditions for greenfield international airport development at Mopa, Goa, following concerns about environmental sensitivity disclosure, inadequate sampling points, and non-disclosure of reserved forests. Court suspended the EC granted by MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 pending fresh EAC review. EAC must reconsider recommendations and conditions within prescribed timeframe, with liberty to modulate NGT conditions. Court exercised powers under Article 142 to ensure rule of law compliance while preserving EAC's expert decision-making capacity. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Environmental Clearance (EC) for the Mopa Airport project.
2. Disclosure of Environmental Sensitivity, including forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs).
3. Public Consultation and Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
4. Sampling Points for environmental parameters.
5. Felling of Trees.
6. The appellate jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the requirement of a merits review.
7. Environmental Rule of Law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Environmental Clearance (EC) for the Mopa Airport Project:

The appeal challenged the grant of an EC for the Mopa Airport project in Goa. The NGT had affirmed the EC but imposed additional conditions for environmental protection. The Supreme Court scrutinized the process leading to the grant of EC, emphasizing the importance of transparency and full disclosure by the project proponent in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

2. Disclosure of Environmental Sensitivity, including Forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs):

The project proponent failed to disclose the presence of forests and ESZs within a 15 km radius in Form 1, a crucial document for the EIA process. The Court rejected the argument that only statutorily recognized forests needed disclosure, emphasizing that the term "forests" should be understood in its ordinary sense, as established in the Godavarman case. The EIA report also failed to acknowledge ESZs within the study area, which was deemed a significant omission.

3. Public Consultation and Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC):

Public consultation is a critical component of the EIA process, intended to incorporate the concerns of affected communities. The Court found that the EAC failed to adequately consider the environmental concerns raised during public consultation, reducing them to issues of employment opportunities. The EAC's appraisal lacked a detailed analysis of the EIA report and relied on extraneous factors, such as public interest and land acquisition delays, rather than environmental impact.

4. Sampling Points for Environmental Parameters:

The EIA report's sampling for air, water, and noise quality was confined to Goa, neglecting the Maharashtra region, which constituted 40% of the study area. This omission was considered a deficiency in the EIA process, impacting the accuracy of environmental assessments.

5. Felling of Trees:

The EIA report understated the extent of tree felling, initially claiming only a few trees would be affected. In reality, permissions were granted for the felling of 54,676 trees. The Court criticized this significant omission, highlighting the need for transparency and accurate disclosure in the EIA process.

6. The Appellate Jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Requirement of a Merits Review:

The NGT's review of the EC was inadequate, failing to conduct a merits review as required under Section 16 of the NGT Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the NGT's role as an expert adjudicatory body tasked with applying principles of sustainable development and conducting a thorough review of environmental clearances.

7. Environmental Rule of Law:

The judgment underscored the importance of environmental governance within a rule of law framework, emphasizing sustainable development and the need for effective, transparent, and accountable institutions. The Court highlighted the interconnectedness of environmental protection with broader goals such as public health, economic development, and social equity.

Directions Issued:

The Supreme Court directed the EAC to revisit the EC conditions, addressing the specific environmental concerns highlighted in the judgment. The EC was suspended pending this review, and the EAC was instructed to report back to the Court. The judgment reinforced the need for a balanced approach, ensuring that infrastructure development proceeds with due regard for environmental sustainability.

---