‘Right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority under fundamental rights’

The Supreme Court has set aside, in separate judgments on Monday, a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order and a Madras High Court decision to halt development activities at Auroville for lack of environmental clearance while outlining the need for sustainable development which strike a “golden balance” between the rights to development and clean environment.

“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, the right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority under fundamental rights particularly under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution,” a Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale observed in their judgment.

A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale set aside the April 2022 order of the NGT, Chennai, which directed the Auroville Foundation not to proceed with further construction in its township project until environmental clearance was obtained.

Setting aside the NGT verdict of 2022, Justice Trivedi concluded that the Tribunal had “committed gross error in assuming the jurisdiction and giving directions untenable in law”.

The court, in a second judgment also delivered on March 17, upheld a separate appeal filed by The Auroville Foundation against a March 2024 order of the High Court. The High Court had set aside a June 2022 notification containing a standing order issued by the Foundation for the reconstitution of the Auroville Town Development Council.

The Bench observed that “disgruntled and discontented” residents had embroiled the Foundation in unnecessary litigation and ordered respondent Natasha Storey to deposit Rs. 50,000 as costs to the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee within two weeks.

In the judgment concerning the NGT order, the apex court explained that the only grievance raised by the respondents was with regard to the construction of roads as mentioned in the Master Plan by the Foundation. Justice Trivedi noted the Master Plan had already been 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 raised in the Tribunal against the road construction was that it would destroy an area called the Darkali forest.

The Foundation had countered that areas cannot be treated as a forest. It was not shown in government records as a forest. They contended that it was a man-made plantation which did not require environmental clearance mandated under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

“The Auroville Foundation Act required a Master Plan. The Master Plan was approved by the governing board of the Foundation in 1999. It was approved by the competent authority, Town and Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of Urban Development, on February 15, 2001. The Master Plan was notified on August 16, 2010 and published in the Official Gazette on August 28, 2010. Thus, the Master Plan, approved by the competent authority, had attained a statutory force and a finality. 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,” Justice Trivedi held.