Supreme Court Clarifies Environmental Clearance Requirements For Large-Scale Construction Projects

In Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1703, the Supreme Court of India examined the validity of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s (MoEF&CC) Notification dated 29 January 2025 (the 2025 Notification), which sought to amend the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification). The Court’s judgment provides authoritative clarity on the applicability of Environmental Clearance (EC) to large-scale building and construction projects, including educational institutions.

Background and Challenge

The EIA Notification mandates prior EC for all building and construction, township, and area development projects exceeding 20,000 square meters in built-up area. The 2025 Notification sought to exempt certain categories, namely industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions, up to a built-up area of 1,50,000 square meters., from obtaining prior EC. It further rendered inapplicable the General Conditions of the EIA Notification, which required projects located within eco-sensitive areas, wildlife protection zones, interstate or international boundaries, or critically polluted areas, to be appraised exclusively by MoEF&CC rather than State Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA).

The petitioner-NGO contended that the 2025 Notification diluted the rigours of the EIA framework, undermined the precautionary principle, and was ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It was argued that exempting large projects from scrutiny would cause irreversible ecological damage. The petitioner highlighted that earlier attempts at similar relaxations had been stayed or struck down by courts and the National Green Tribunal.

Arguments and Defence

The Union and States defended the amendments as clarificatory, arguing that the EIA Notification itself never envisaged the application of General Conditions to building and construction projects. They emphasized that the stay imposed on the 2025 Notification had paralysed construction activities nationwide, with more than 700 projects in Maharashtra alone pending SEIAA’s consideration. It was further submitted that SEIAAs, being expert bodies constituted by the Central Government, are competent to assess state-level projects and that requiring MoEF&CC to appraise all such matters was impractical.

Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the State’s interpretation of the EIA framework, holding that the General Conditions were never intended to apply to building and construction projects or township and area development projects. The Court stressed that SEIAAs, being duly empowered and specialized bodies, were competent to appraise such projects. A literal reading of the EIA Notification confirmed this construction.

However, the Court struck down the exemption granted by the 2025 Notification to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions. The Bench reasoned that any construction project exceeding 20,000 square meters., regardless of its intended use, inevitably carries significant environmental implications. Excluding such projects from environmental scrutiny was unjustifiable. Notably, the Court observed that education has increasingly become a commercial industry rather than a purely service-oriented sector, thereby necessitating equal regulatory oversight.

Principle of Sustainable Development

The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of sustainable development, emphasising that environmental protection and developmental growth must advance in harmony, neither at the cost of the other. It cautioned against diluting statutory safeguards under the guise of facilitation and highlighted that environmental considerations cannot be subordinated to economic expediency.

Conclusion

This decision removes ambiguity in the applicability of EC to educational institutions and industrial construction projects, thereby preventing large-scale developments from circumventing environmental scrutiny. At the same time, it ensures continuity of construction activities by clarifying the limited role of General Conditions in relation to building and construction projects. The ruling thus achieves a balance, facilitating development while preserving ecological safeguards.