SC upholds SEIAA and SEAC's authority for project-level environmental clearances

Time of India

a day ago

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) will remain the competent authorities for granting environmental clearances at the project level.
The apex court's ruling resolves a prolonged regulatory deadlock that had stalled over 493 real estate projects in
Mumbai
Metropolitan Region (MMR) and
Pune
, impacting more than 70,000 housing units, particularly within the affordable and mid-income segments. The court's intervention is expected to bring much-needed clarity to the process of obtaining environment clearances and is anticipated to restore momentum to housing construction in the region.
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of a 29 January 2025 notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC). This notification provided two main things in relation to Item 8(a) [Building and Construction Projects] and 8(b) [Township Area & Development Project] of the Schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment dated 14 September 2006 ('EIA 2006 Notification'): (a) exemption of industrial sheds, schools, and educational institutions from Environmental Clearance (EC) requirements, and (b) clarification that the General Condition under the EIA 2006 Notification would not apply to such projects.
Under the EIA 2006 notification, projects such as Building & Construction and Township & Area Development with more than 20,000 sq meters. Built-up area (BUA) are required to procure an EC before construction can begin. The Schedule of the EIA 2006 notification includes a General Condition (GC) mandating that if a project is within 5km of a protected area, eco-sensitive zone, or inter-state/international boundary, it becomes a category A project, subject to appraisal by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee.
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2025 notification but struck down Note 1 to Item 8(a) of the EIA 2006 Schedule, which had exempted industrial sheds, schools, and educational institutions from obtaining mandatory environmental clearances. The Court found these exemptions to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the parent notification.
The SC also quashed Clause 14(a) and Appendix 16 of the 2014 and 2016 notifications that had proposed establishing an Environmental Cell under local authorities. The Court held that such provisions would cause jurisdictional overlaps and confusion, undermining the integrity of environmental appraisal processes.
In its interpretation of the General Condition (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification—which elevates certain Category B projects to Category A status if located within ecologically sensitive areas, SC reaffirmed that GC does not apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b). This settles ambiguity raised after the Kerala High Court had earlier set aside the 2014 MoEF&CC clarification on this matter in One Earth One Life v. Union of India (March 2024).
Impact on real estate development
The judgement brings regulatory certainty and uniformity in how environmental clearances are to be administered, particularly for projects over 20,000 sq meters built-up area, which must secure clearance before commencing construction. This decision is expected to unblock stalled housing supply, especially in regions that had been hit by inconsistent interpretations of clearance norms.
Domnic Romell, president, CREDAI-MCHI, said, "We initiated this petition to bring clarity to an increasingly complex and ambiguous
environmental clearance process
, and we are grateful that the Supreme Court has upheld the role of SEIAA and SEAC as competent authorities."
Trilegal represented CREDAI National and Godrej Properties. Samit Shukla, partner (Dispute Resolution Practice), Trilegal said, "This judgement brings much-needed clarity on the scope of environmental regulation for real estate projects. The Supreme Court's recognition that General Conditions under the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b) ensures regulatory certainty and paves the way for timely development."
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.-000166-000166 - 2025, Vanashakti vs Union of India.