2025 INSC 347 C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 1 of 34

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022

THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION ....APPELLANT

VERSUS

NAVROZ KERSASP MODY

& ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present Appeals stem from the final judgment and

order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the National Green

Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the

“Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 239/2021, and from an interim

order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the said Tribunal in

the M.A. No.6/2022 in O.A No.239/2021. The

directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned

judgment dated 28.04.2022 read as under:-

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 2 of 34

I. “125. In the result, this Original Application is

allowed in part and disposed of with the

following directions: -

(i) The 1st Respondent is directed to prepare

a proper township plan either in respect of

778 Ha which is in their possession now or in

respect of 1963 Ha which was visualized by

the MOTHER by identifying the locations

where each zone will have to be located,

where the roads will have to be laid showing

the location of the ring roads with their width

and further road, if any, to be constructed,

the nature of industries and other activities

which they are expected to establish in the

township and if it is not going to be

implemented as one phase, how many

phases in which they are going to complete

the project and then apply for Environmental

Clearance (EC) as it will fall under Item 8 (b)

of the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended

from time to time. Till then they are directed

not to proceed with further construction in the

project area.”

(ii) Considering it as an exceptional

circumstances, even before obtaining

Environmental Clearance (EC) for further

activity, we are permitting the 1st

Respondent to complete the crown road on

the following conditions: -

a. The Joint Committee appointed by this

Tribunal viz., (i) the District Collector who is

the Chairman of the District Green

Committee of the concerned district along

with (ii) the Forest Officer not below the rank

of Conservator of Forest, as deputed by the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

(Head of Forests Force) and Chief Wildlife

Warden, State of Tamil Nadu to inspect the

area in question and ascertain whether by

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 3 of 34

reducing the width of the road at suitable

places or by slight realignment (if any)

required, so that the number of trees to be

cut can be minimized so that the vision of the

MOTHER of creating a green cover in that

area can be protected.

b. The Joint Committee is also directed to

ascertain as to whether there are any water

bodies/streams exists in that area and if the

road passes through the water body, then

what is the manner in which the road will

have to be constructed by elevation without

affecting the water body/water flow or a bed

level causeway with box type of vents will

suffice. If such a recommendation is made,

that also will have to be implemented, and

the 1st Respondent is to undertake the

construction as suggested by the committee.

c. The Joint Committee is directed to

complete the process and submit the report

to the 1st Respondent within a period of two

months and on receipt of the same, the 1st

Respondent is directed to carry out the

crown road work, in the impugned area with

tree cover, strictly in accordance with the

recommendations made by the Joint

Committee.

d. Till that exercise is completed, the 1st

Respondent is directed not to cut any further

trees from the property. The 1st Respondent

is at liberty to undertake the crown road work

in the remaining stretches where there are

no trees. The 1st Respondent is also at

liberty to take action against unauthorized

occupations, if any, strictly in accordance

with the law in force.

(iii) The 1st Respondent is also directed to

plant trees in the ratio of 1: 10 for the number

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 4 of 34

of trees to be cut, and the species to be

recommended by the Joint Committee may

be considered for planting either on the side

of the road or other area identified by the

Joint Committee, in order to protect

environment and also to maintain the green

cover in that area.

(iv) Considering the circumstances, parties

are directed to bear their respective costs in

the application.

(v) The Registry is directed to communicate

this order to the members of the Joint

Committee appointed by this Tribunal, the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head

of Forests Force) and Chief Wildlife Warden,

State of Tamil Nadu, the Ministry of

Environment, Forests & Climate Change

(MoEF&CC) and the Additional Chief

Secretary to Government, Department of

Environment, Forests & Climate Change for

their information and compliance of

directions.”

II. The following further directions were given by the

Tribunal by passing the interim order dated

27.07.2022 in MA No. 6/2022:

“7. In the meantime, the Joint Committee

appointed by this Tribunal vide Judgment dated

28.04.2022 is also directed to file the report

regarding the nature of work done and

observations made by them at the time of

inspection.”

2. This Court on 13.12.2023 passed the following interim

order pending these Appeals.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 5 of 34

“5. Having regard to the said prayer which was

sought by the Respondent No.1 (original

applicant) and having regard to the final

directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned

order, we are of the prima facie opinion that the

direction contained in Para 125(i) being outside

the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the same is

required to be stayed till further orders, and is

ordered accordingly.”

3. Prelude on the History of Auroville:-

I. Before appreciating the issues involved, it would

be apt to peep into the history of Auroville. In

1965, the “Mother” (Mirra Alfassa, a French lady),

a spiritual collaborator of Sri Aurobindo (a Spiritual

reformer, Philosopher and Educationist),

envisioned to launch the project of Auroville, with

an aim to establish an international universal

township, where men and women of all countries

are able to live in peace and harmony, above all

creeds, all politics and all nationalities and to

realise human unity. The project of Auroville was

formerly inaugurated by the “Mother” in

28.02.1968. The Charter of Auroville given by the

“Mother” was the following:

“1. Auroville belongs to nobody in

particular. Auroville belongs to humanity as

a whole. But to live in Auroville one must be

a willing servitor of the Divine

Consciousness.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 6 of 34

2. Auroville will be the place of an unending

education, of constant progress and a

youth that never ages.

3. Auroville wants to be the bridge between

the past and the future. Taking advantage

of all discoveries from without and from

within, Auroville will boldly spring towards

future realisations.

4. Auroville will be a site of material and

spiritual researches for a living embodiment

of an actual Human Unity.”

II. The original Master Plan of the Auroville was

conceptualized in Galaxy shape, and was planned

to eventually accommodate 50,000 residents, a

number which the “Mother” considered sufficient

to allow the experiment in human unity to take on

a meaningful and significant dimension. Picture of

Galaxy Model Plan conceptualized in 1968 is

shown below:

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 7 of 34

III. The project Auroville was legally started as the

project of a charitable organization, “The Sri

Aurobindo Society” in Pondicherry, which was

created to diffuse Sri Aurobindo’s thoughts. The

development of Auroville in the initial few years

showed good progress and it developed at a rapid

pace. Number of Indians and foreigners settled

down in Auroville and devoted themselves to

various activities showing a remarkable harmony

amongst the members of Auroville, which gave a

promise to the Government of India of an early

fulfilment of the ideals for which Auroville was

established. It was also encouraged by UNESCO

and other International Organizations of the world.

However, after the “Mother” passed away in 1973,

the situation changed, and number of complaints

came to be received by the Government of India

with regard to the mismanagement in the working

of the Sri Aurobindo Society. Following the

requests by majority of Auroville residents, the

Government of India issued a Presidential

Ordinance called the Auroville (Emergency

Provisions) Ordinance, 1980, later replaced by the

Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 8 of 34

Finally, the Government of India created a unique

status for Auroville by passing the Auroville

Foundation Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

the “A.F.Act”).

4. Constitution of Auroville Foundation and its

Standing Orders-

I. The Government of India notified the Constitution

of Auroville Foundation as a statutory body on

29.01.1991 under the A.F. Act, and at present it is

under the realm of Ministry of Human Resource

Development (Department of Higher Education)

as the Central Government undertaking.

II. As transpiring from the record, the original Galaxy

Plan envisioned by the “Mother” in 1968 was the

plan with four zones in Auroville, with the

centripetal force, being the “Matrimandir”. The

said Galaxy Plan was revised in 1972 as the First

Master Plan called the “Town Plan”. As the A.F.

Act required statutory Master Plan as

contemplated in Section 17(e) read with Section

19(2)(c) of the said A.F. Act, the Master Plan was

approved by the Governing Board and the

Residents’ Assembly of the Appellant Foundation

in 1999. The said 1999 Master Plan was further

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 9 of 34

approved by the competent authority- the Town

and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO),

Ministry of Urban Development, on 15.02.2001

under the Model Town and Country Planning Act.

The said Master Plan was notified on 16.08.2010

and published in the Official Gazette on

28.08.2010.

III. In view of Section 11(3) of the A.F. Act, the

Governing Board decided, that “Standing Orders”

not inconsistent with the provisions of the A.F. Act

and the Rules made thereunder, on the matters

that the Governing Board may consider

appropriate and necessary, shall be notified from

time to time, by the Auroville Foundation. The said

Resolution was notified in the Gazette of India,

Part III dated 05.03.2011 by the Ministry of Human

Resource Development (Department of Higher

Education).

IV. Since the said approved Master Plan prescribed

the “Town Development Council” as the body for

implementing the Master Plan with the

organizational structure as in Appendix V of the

Master Plan, the Governing Board in terms of the

provisions of the Master Plan, constituted the

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 10 of 34

Town Development Council for the purpose of

implementation of the Master Plan, vide the

Standing Order No. 6/2011 dated 01.05.2011,

which was notified in the Government of India

Gazette, Part III, dated 11.06.2011. The said

Standing Order dated 01.05.2011 came to be

replaced by the Standing Order No. 1/2019 dated

04.06.2019.

V. Again, the said Standing Order dated 04.06.2019

came to be replaced by the Standing Order

No.1/2022 dated 01.06.2022, which was notified

in the Gazette of India, Part III, on 15.07.2022. On

01.06.2022, the Auroville Foundation issued the

Office Order for the re-constitution of the Auroville

Town Development Council (ATDC). The

Appellant-Foundation thereafter also issued a

Corrigendum dated 07.12.2022, to the Standing

Order No. 1/2022 dated 01.06.2022, in order to

clarify and add the source of statutory power in

the Preamble to the said original Standing Order

dated 01.06.2022. The said Corrigendum was

also published in the Gazette of India, Part III, on

10.12.2022.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 11 of 34

5. Prefatory Facts:-

I. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the original

Applicants) had filed an Application being O.A.

No.239/2021 before the Tribunal, raising a

grievance with regard to cutting of large number

of trees by the Appellant-Auroville Foundation,

alleging inter alia that the Master Plan for

Auroville as envisaged by the ‘Mother’ was

approved by the Governing Board of the Auroville

Foundation in consultation with the Residents’

Assembly, and it further led to preparation of the

Auroville Universal Township Master Plan-

Perspective 2025, which was approved by the

Ministry of Human Resources Development in

2001. However, now the Appellant-Foundation

was focusing on the manifestation of the roads

mentioned in the Master Plan, e.g. the Crown

Road, a road encircling the centre of the

Township, and the outer ring road, and was

intending to distract Darkali Forest by using huge

machineries causing deterioration to the

environment. According to the Respondents-

original Applicants, the said lands covered under

the deemed Forest, were entitled to the

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 12 of 34

protection as mandated in T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others

1

case.

II. The Respondents Applicant therefore had sought

the following reliefs in the said O.A. No.239/2021.

“INTERIM RELIEF:

A. Injunct the 1st respondent from felling

any tree or clearing undergrowth in the

Darkali forest or any area in Auroville for

the proposed crown road project.

B. Issue such other orders as it deems fit in

the interest of the case and render justice.

MAIN PRAYER:

A. Direct the 1st respondent to prepare a

Detailed Development Plan including a

mobility plan which is based on and

respects the present-day ground realities,

to be approved as mandated in the Master

Plan and implement projects based on

such plan after necessary impact

assessments and feasibility studies in an

environmentally sustainable manner.

B. Direct the respondent to pay costs to the

applicant.

C. Issue such other orders as it deems fit in

the interest of the case and render justice.”

III. The Tribunal initially vide the order dated

10.12.2021 granted an interim order directing the

Appellant-Foundation not to cut any further trees

till the next date of hearing. The said interim order

thereafter was extended till the final disposal of

the case.

1

(1997) 2 SCC 267

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 13 of 34

IV. The Appellant-Foundation (1

st

Respondent before

the Tribunal) had filed a counter affidavit raising

various contentions including the maintainability

of the Application itself as also the jurisdiction of

the Tribunal to entertain the Application. It was

specifically contended that neither the word

‘Forest’ did appear in the Auroville Charter nor in

the Act of 1988. Auroville or any part of it, was

neither a Forest nor a deemed Forest requiring

protection or clearance under the Forest

(Conservation) Act, 1980.

V. The Respondent No.3-Union of India through the

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Change (MoEF&CC- the Respondent No.2 before

the Tribunal) had also filed a counter-affidavit

stating in detail the stand and role of the Ministry

and contending inter alia that the requirement of

prior Environmental Clearance for certain

categories of construction and developmental

activities (new construction projects and new

industrial estates) in the country was inserted in

Schedule-I, after Item 30, through an amendment

in EIA Notification, 1994 (operative at that time)

vide the Notification dated 07.07.2004. The

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 14 of 34

Central Government under the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 had issued Environment

Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006

superseding Environment Impact Assessment

Notification 1994, which required prior

Environmental Clearance from the concerned

Regulatory Authority. It was further contended

that the Auroville Project was examined by the

said regulatory authority for the applicability of

environmental clearance as directed by the

Tribunal and it was found that the Auroville

Township Project was under construction much

before the EIA Notification, 1994 and its

amendment in 2004, and substantial building

work of Auroville Project was completed at

various stages as far back as in 2001. Therefore,

it could not have been considered as a new

project under the provisions of the Notification

dated 07.07.2004. It was specifically contented

that there was no change in the scope of

Township project from the original Master Plan,

and as such the Township project would not affect

the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and its

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 15 of 34

amendments for grant of Environmental

Clearance.

VI. The Tribunal raised the following points for

consideration.

“65. The points that arise for consideration

are:

(i) Whether the application is maintainable?

(ii) Whether it was barred by limitation?

(iii) Whether the intended activity of the 1st

respondent requires any prior

Environmental Clearance or clearance

under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

as claimed by the applicant. Even if they

are not required, is there any necessity to

issue any directions applying the

“Precautionary Principle” to protect

environment and if so, what are the nature

of directions to be issued?”

VII. The Tribunal assuming the jurisdiction observed

that a substantial question of alleged violation of

environmental laws in the implementation of the

project having been involved, the Application was

maintainable. Disagreeing with the stand taken

by the MoEF&CC that the Project would fall within

the exempted category of 2004 Notification and

did not require the Environmental Clearance, the

Tribunal held that any further activity to be done

by the Appellant-Foundation can be permitted to

be carried out only after obtaining the necessary

prior Environmental Clearance. As regards the

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 16 of 34

disputed Crown Road, the Tribunal held inter alia

that the major portion of Crown Road has already

been completed and only a small portion has

remained, and that if it was not allowed to be

completed, there would be hardship caused to

the Appellant-Foundation. The Tribunal, on the

question as to whether the area in question was a

Forest as envisaged in T.N. Godavarman’s case,

held that it could not be treated as a Forest, as in

none of the Government documents produced, it

was treated as Forest, and admittedly it was man-

made plantation of some species. The Tribunal

therefore held that it would not come under the

definition of “Forest” for the purposes of obtaining

clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act,

1980.

VIII. The Tribunal after recording such findings applied

the “Precautionary Principle” and issued the

directions as stated earlier, vide the impugned

judgment and order dated 28.04.2022 in O.A. No.

239/2021, and the impugned order dated

27.07.2022 in M.A. No. 6/2022, which are

assailed by the Appellant-Foundation in these

Appeals.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 17 of 34

IX. It may be noted that one of the intervenors before

the Tribunal, Ms. Natasha Storey had also filed a

Writ Petition being No.25882/2022 challenging

the Notification dated 01.06.2022 containing the

Standing Order No. 1/2022 issued by the

Appellant-Foundation, and the Civil Appeal No.

13651/2024 arising out of the order passed in the

said Writ Petition was also heard simultaneously

with the present set of Appeals. The said Appeal

is also being decided simultaneously by a

separate judgment.

6. Statutory Provisions of the NGT Act

I. As the long title of the Act states, the National

Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “NGT Act”)

was enacted to provide for the establishment of a

National Green Tribunal for the effective and

expeditious disposal of cases relating to

environmental protection and conservation of

forest and other natural resources including

enforcement of any legal right relating to

environment and giving relief and compensation

for damages to persons and property and for the

matters connected therewith and incidental

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 18 of 34

thereto. Section 2(1)(m) defines “substantial

question relating to environment” as under:

“2(1)(m) "substantial question relating to

environment" shall include an instance

where,—

(i) there is a direct violation of a specific

statutory environmental obligation by a

person by which,—

(A) the community at large other than an

individual or group of individuals is affected

or likely to be affected by the environmental

consequences; or

(B) the gravity of damage to the

environment or property is substantial; or

(C) the damage to public health is broadly

measurable;

(ii) the environmental consequences relate

to a specific activity or a point source of

pollution;”

II. Chapter III of the said Act pertains to the

jurisdiction, powers and proceedings of the

Tribunal. Section 14 and Section 15 thereof being

relevant in respect of the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal, the same are reproduced hereunder:

“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—

(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction

over all civil cases where a substantial

question relating to environment (including

enforcement of any legal right relating to

environment), is involved and such

question arises out of the implementation

of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes

arising from the questions referred to in

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 19 of 34

sub-section (1) and settle such disputes

and pass order thereon.

(3) No application for adjudication of

dispute under this section shall be

entertained by the Tribunal unless it is

made within a period of six months from

the date on which the cause of action for

such dispute first arose:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is

satisfied that the applicant was prevented

by sufficient cause from filing the

application within the said period, allow it to

be filed within a further period not

exceeding sixty days.

15. Relief, compensation and

restitution.—

(1) The Tribunal may, by an order,

provide,—

(a) relief and compensation to the victims

of pollution and other environmental

damage arising under the enactments

specified in the Schedule I (including

accident occurring while handling any

hazardous substance);

(b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the environment for

such area or areas, as the Tribunal may

think fit.

(2) The relief and compensation and

restitution of property and environment

referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of

sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the

relief paid or payable under the Public

Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).

(3) No application for grant of any

compensation or relief or restitution of

property or environment under this section

shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless

it is made within a period of five years from

the date on which the cause for such

compensation or relief first arose:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is

satisfied that the applicant was prevented

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 20 of 34

by sufficient cause from filing the

application within the said period, allow it to

be filed within a further period not

exceeding sixty days.

(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the

damage to public health, property and

environment, divide the compensation or

relief payable under separate heads

specified in Schedule II so as to provide

compensation or relief to the claimants and

for restitution of the damaged property or

environment, as it may think fit.

(5) Every claimant of the compensation or

relief under this Act shall intimate to the

Tribunal about the application filed to, or,

as the case may be, compensation or relief

received from, any other court or authority.”

III. Section 19 of the NGT Act pertains to the

Procedure and Powers of the Tribunal, which inter

alia states that the Tribunal shall not be bound by

the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the

principle of natural justice. It also states that the

Tribunal shall not be bound by the rules of

evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. Section 20 provides that the Tribunal shall,

while passing any order or decision or award,

apply the Principles of Sustainable Development,

the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays

Principle.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 21 of 34

IV. The enactments in respect of which the Tribunal

has the jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 14

and 15 are specified in Schedule-I appended to

the NGT Act, which reads as under:

“SCHEDULE I

[See sections 14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2),

19(4)(j) and 34(1)]

1. The Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1974;

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

4. The Air (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1981;

5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.”

ANALYSIS:

7. As transpiring from the Section 14, the Tribunal has the

jurisdiction over all civil cases where the substantial

question relating to environment including enforcement

of any legal right relating to environment, is involved

and such question arises out of the implementation of

the enactments specified in Schedule I. Therefore, for

the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal under

Section 14, it has to be shown that (1) a substantial

question relating to environment including enforcement

of any legal right relating to environment is involved;

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 22 of 34

and (2) such questions arise out of the implementation

of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The term

“substantial question relating to environment” as

defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act would include,

inter alia, the question where there is a direct violation

of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a

person by which (a) the community at large other than

the individual or group of individuals is affected or likely

to be affected by the environmental consequences; or

(b) the gravity of damage to the environment or

property is substantial; or (c) the damage to public

health is broadly measurable. The substantial question

would also include the environmental consequences

relating to a specific activity or a point source of

pollution. In view of the said definition also the Tribunal

before exercising the jurisdiction has to satisfy itself

that a substantial question pertaining to the violation of

or implementation of any specific statutory

environmental obligations contained in any of the

enactments specified in Schedule I, is involved.

8. Recently in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Centre for Environment Protection Research and

Development

2

, this Court held as follows:

2

(2020) 9 SCC 781

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 23 of 34

“42. In view of the definition of “substantial

question relating to environment” in Section

2(1)(m) of the NGT Act, the learned Tribunal can

examine and decide the question of violation of

any specific statutory environmental obligation,

which affects or is likely to affect a group of

individuals, or the community at large.

43. For exercise of power under Section 14 of the

NGT Act, a substantial question of law should be

involved including any legal right to environment

and such question should arise out of

implementation of the specified enactments.

44. Violation of any specific statutory

environmental obligation gives rise to a

substantial question of law and not just statutory

obligations under the enactments specified in

Schedule I. However, the question must arise out

of implementation of one or more of the

enactments specified in Schedule I.”

Similar view is also taken in case of H.P. Bus-Stand

Management and Development Authority Vs.

Central Empowered Committee

3

.

9. From the above, it is explicitly clear that every question

or dispute raised by an Applicant before the Tribunal

pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a

substantial question. It has to be a substantial question

relating to environment as contemplated in Section

2(1)(m), and such substantial question must arise out

of the implementation of any of the

3

(2021) 4 SCC 309

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 24 of 34

enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I. Though

strict law of evidence may not be applicable to the

cases filed before the Tribunal, the Applicant has to

raise the substantial question in his Application

specifically alleging the violation of a particular

enactment specified in Schedule I.

10. So far as the facts of the present Appeal are

concerned, as stated hereinabove, the only grievance

raised by the Respondents (original Applicants) in their

O.A. was with regard to the Appellant-Foundation

constructing the roads as mentioned in the Master

Plan which was already approved by the Governing

Board of the Foundation and by the Minister of Human

Resource Development way back in 2001, and

published in the official gazette in 2010. The allegation

made in the Original Application was that while

constructing the said roads particularly the Crown

road, or road encircling the centre of township, and an

Outer Ring Road, the forest area known as Darkali

forest was being destructed. According to the

Respondents, the said area was required to be treated

as a deemed forest and was required to be protected

as mandated in the T.N. Godavarman’s Case. Except

the said bare allegations, there was no other allegation

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 25 of 34

made with regard to any violation of any of the

enactments specified in Schedule I.

11. Significantly, the Tribunal specifically negated the said

allegations raised by the Respondents by observing

inter alia in para 118 of the impugned judgment that

the said area cannot be treated as a Forest, as in any

of the Government documents produced, it was not

treated as a Forest and not even shown as a Forest,

and that admittedly, it was a man-made plantation of

some species, and therefore, it will not come under the

definition of Forest for the purpose of obtaining

clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Curiously, after having held that the area in question

could not be treated as a Forest and that there was no

clearance required under the Forest (Conservation)

Act, the Tribunal proceeded further applying the

“Precautionary Principle” and appointed a Joint

committee to inspect the area in question and

ascertain whether any modification could be made in

the width of the road, and further directed the

Appellant-Foundation to prepare a proper Township

plan in respect of the area in their possession and in

respect of the area visualized by the “Mother”.

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 26 of 34

12. In our opinion, the Tribunal has completely misdirected

itself by entering into the restricted domain of judicial

review under the guise of applying “Precautionary

Principle” in extraordinary circumstances, and in

interfering with the implementation of Master Plan

which was already approved by the competent

Authority way back in the year 2001. As stated earlier,

the original Galaxy Plan envisaged by the “Mother” in

1968 was the structure with 4 zones in Auroville with

the centripetal force, being “Matrimandir”. The said

Galaxy Plan was revised in 1972 as the First Master

Plan called the “Town Plan”. Since the Auroville

Foundation Act required Statutory Master Plan as

contemplated in Section 17(e) read with Section

19(2)(c), the said Master Plan was approved by the

Governing Board of the Appellant Foundation in 1999,

and was further approved by the competent authority-

Town and Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of

Urban Development on 15.02.2001. The said Master

Plan was also notified on 16.08.2010 and published in

the Official Gazette on 28.08.2010.

13. Thus, the said Master Plan having been approved by

the competent Authority as back as in 2001 had

attained a statutory force and a finality. There are

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 27 of 34

about more than 2000 substantial constructions/

developments, which have taken place in Auroville

since then till this date. The construction of roads as

mentioned in the said approved Master Plan including

the Crown Road, a Road encircling the Centre of the

Township and an outer Ring Road, being on the verge

of completion, except few patches, which could not be

completed because of the obstructions caused by the

disgruntled Residents like the Respondents, the

Tribunal thoroughly misdirected itself by directing the

Appellant to prepare a proper Township Plan. It is also

significant to note that the Auroville Foundation Act is a

Special Act enacted to provide for the Acquisition and

Transfer of the Undertakings of Auroville and to vest

such undertakings in a Foundation established for the

purpose with a view to making long term arrangements

for the better management and further development of

Auroville in accordance with its Original Charter and for

the purpose connected therewith and incidental

thereto. As per Section 27 of the said Act, the

provisions of the said Act have the effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law for time being in force or in

any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 28 of 34

than the Act, or in any decree or order of any Court,

Tribunal or other Authority. Thus, in view of the

overriding effect of A.F. Act also the impugned direction

issued by the Tribunal without any jurisdiction as

circumscribed under Section 14 of the NGT Act, would

not be tenable at law.

14. The Tribunal has also travelled beyond its jurisdiction

in giving the impugned directions under the guise of

exceptional circumstances applying the “Precautionary

Principle.” At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note

that as stated earlier, the Ministry of Environment,

Forest and Climate Change in its affidavit filed before

the Tribunal had made its stand very clear that the

Auroville Township Project was under construction

much before the EIA Notification, 1994 and its

amendment in 2004 and therefore could not be

considered as a new Project under the said Notification

of 2004. It was also made clear that there was no

change in the scope of Township Project from the

Original Master Plan and as such, the Township

Project would not affect the provisions of EIA

Notification, 2006 and its amendments for the grant of

Environment Clearance. Again curiously, the Tribunal

without any material on record, brushed aside the said

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 29 of 34

stand taken by MoEF&CC in its affidavit, by holding

that any further activity to be done by the Appellant-

Foundation, could be permitted to be carried out only

after obtaining necessary prior Environmental

Clearance, and then proceeded to appoint the Joint

Committee to inspect the area in question and to

ascertain whether the width of the Road at suitable

places could be reduced so that the number of trees to

be cut can be minimized. Such directions clearly fall

outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

particularly when there was no substantial question

relating to the environment was shown to have arisen

in implementation of any of the enactments specified in

Schedule I appended to the NGT Act. There is no

whisper in the impugned order as to which of the

provision and which of the enactment specified in

Schedule I was violated.

15. It would not be out of place to regurgitate the law

developed so far on the protection of environment. In

the landmark Judgment in case of Vellore Citizens

Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India & Others

4

, it was

stated that the traditional concept that Development

and Ecology are opposed to each other is no longer

4

(1996) 5 SCC 647

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 30 of 34

acceptable. “Sustainable Development” has been

accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and

improve the quality of human life, while living within the

carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.

“Sustainable Development” as defined by Brundtland

Report means “development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of the

future generations to meet their own needs.” The

“Sustainable Development” therefore has been held to

be a balancing concept between Ecology and

Development as a part of the customary international

law.

16. In Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Ors.

5

,

this Court after referring to the principles enunciated in

the Stockholm Declaration, made very apt

observations in Para 26 and 27, which maybe quoted

hereunder: -

“26. Certain principles were enunciated in the

Stockholm Declaration giving broad parameters

and guidelines for the purposes of sustaining

humanity and its environment. Of these

parameters, a few principles are extracted which

are of relevance to the present debate. Principle

2 provides that the natural resources of the earth

including air, water, land, flora and fauna

especially representative samples of natural

ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit

5

(2004) 2 SCC 392

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 31 of 34

of present and future generations through careful

planning and management as appropriate. In the

same vein, the fourth principle says:

“man has special responsibility to safeguard

and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife

and its habitat which are now gravely

imperilled by a combination of adverse

factors. Nature conservation including

wildlife must, therefore, receive importance

in planning for economic developments.”

These two principles highlight the need to factor

in considerations of the environment while

providing for economic development. The need

for economic development has been dealt with in

Principle 8 where it is said that “economic and

social development is essential for ensuring a

favourable living and working environment for

man and for creating conditions on earth that are

necessary for improvement of the quality of life”.

The importance of maintaining a balance

between economic development on the one hand

and environment protection on the other is again

emphasized in Principle 11 which says:

“The environmental policies of all States

should enhance and not adversely affect the

present or future development potential of

developing countries nor should they hamper

the attainment of better living conditions for

all;”

27. This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance

economic and social needs on the one hand with

environmental considerations on the other. But in

a sense all development is an environmental

threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity

and the rapid increase in the population together

with consequential demands to sustain the

population has resulted in the concreting of open

lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of

lakes and pollution of water resources and the

very air which we breathe. However, there need

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 32 of 34

not necessarily be a deadlock between

development on the one hand and the

environment on the other. The objective of all

laws on environment should be to create

harmony between the two since neither one can

be sacrificed at the altar of the other. This view

was also taken by this Court in Indian Council for

Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 5

SCC 281] , where it was said: (SCC p. 296, para

31)

“While economic development should not be

allowed to take place at the cost of ecology

or by causing widespread environment

destruction and violation; at the same time

the necessity to preserve ecology and

environment should not hamper economic

and other developments. Both development

and environment must go hand in hand, in

other words, there should not be

development at the cost of environment and

vice versa, but there should be development

while taking due care and ensuring the

protection of environment.”

17. Though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and

the “Polluter Pays Principle” are part of the

environmental law of the country, it is equally true that

while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed

fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India, the right to development through

industrialisation equally claims priority under

fundamental rights particularly under Articles 14,19 and

21 of the Constitution of India. There is therefore a

need for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and

striking a golden balance between the right to

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 33 of 34

development and the right to clean environment. In

N.D. Jayal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

6

, it is

observed as under: -

“25. Therefore, the adherence to sustainable

development principle is a sine qua non for the

maintenance of the symbiotic balance between

the rights to environment and development.

Right to environment is a fundamental right. On

the other hand, right to development is also one.

Here the right to “sustainable development”

cannot be singled out. Therefore, the concept of

“sustainable development” is to be treated as an

integral part of “life” under Article 21. Weighty

concepts like intergenerational equity (State of

H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products [(1995) 6 SCC

363] ), public trust doctrine (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal

Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] ) and precautionary

principle (Vellore Citizens [(1996) 5 SCC 647] ),

which we declared as inseparable ingredients of

our environmental jurisprudence, could only be

nurtured by ensuring sustainable development.”

18. As demonstrated earlier, in the instant case, no

substantial question relating to environment had

arisen, nor violation of any of the enactments specified

in Schedule-I was alleged. The Tribunal therefore had

committed gross error in assuming the jurisdiction and

giving directions untenable in law.

6

(2004) 9 SCC 362

C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 34 of 34

19. In that view of the matter, the impugned Orders passed

by the Tribunal being without jurisdiction and legally

untenable deserve to be quashed and set aside, and

are hereby set aside. The Appeals stand allowed

accordingly.

....…………………J.

[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

………......……..…………. J.

[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

17

th

MARCH, 2025