SC's environmental nod clarity to revive 493 stalled projects, bring relief to homebuyers
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
(MMR) and Pune can finally expect delivery of long-delayed homes, as the Supreme Court has cleared a key regulatory roadblock that had stalled approvals for hundreds of residential projects.
The ruling paves the way for construction to resume on 493 stalled developments largely in the affordable and mid-income categories, helping momentum in two of the country's most active housing markets.
The apex court, in its judgment on Vanashakti vs Union of India, reaffirmed that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) are the appropriate authorities for granting project-level
environmental approvals
in Maharashtra. The decision settles a jurisdictional conflict triggered by certain central government notifications issued in 2014 and 2016.
'This is a monumental relief for Maharashtra's real estate sector,' said Domnic Romell, president, CREDAI-MCHI, which had approached the court on the matter. 'We initiated this petition to bring clarity to an increasingly ambiguous clearance process, and the Supreme Court has now provided much-needed certainty.'
The verdict addresses long-standing uncertainty around environmental clearances that had delayed project approvals and disrupted construction timelines. With clarity now restored, developers are expected to resume work on these projects, unlocking over 70,000 housing units and offering long-awaited relief to affected homebuyers.
'The judgment will not only revive the 493
stalled projects
and fasten the delayed supply but also restores homebuyer confidence, introduces liquidity into the market, and restores economic activity across allied industries. Above all, it also underlines a progressive vision where environmental compliance is not diluted but seamlessly combined with development goals,' said Chintan Sheth, CMD, Sheth Realty.
According to him, the balanced approach between sustainability and speed will set an example for future urban growth, allowing on-time deliveries while upholding responsibility towards the environment.
The Supreme Court struck down Clause 14(a) and Appendix 16 of these notifications, which had proposed the creation of Environmental Cells under local planning authorities to issue clearances. Developers had flagged this framework as inconsistent with the existing SEIAA-SEAC process, raising concerns about delays, overlaps, and confusion.
The court also dismissed the notion of differential treatment for industrial sheds and educational buildings under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, reinforcing the need for uniformity in environmental regulation across all project types.
With the regulatory framework now clarified, developers are expected to move quickly to secure approvals and resume stalled work, particularly in high-demand locations across MMR and Pune. The ruling is seen as a timely intervention that will ease supply-side pressures and restore confidence among homebuyers and stakeholders in the state's key urban centres.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
39 minutes ago
- Business Standard
CCI orders probe against RCF for unfair sale of products with urea in Maha
The Competition Commission of India has ordered a probe against state-run Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers for allegedly compelling dealers and farmers to buy other products along with urea in Maharashtra. Acting on a complaint filed by an individual, the fair trade watchdog said the conduct of RCF appeared to contravene provisions of the Competition Act, including those relating to abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements, according an order. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has directed its investigation arm, the Director General, to probe the matter and submit a report within 60 days. It was clarified by CCI that the observations were preliminary and would not prejudice the outcome of the investigation. The complainant (individual) alleged that RCF, a 'Navratna' PSU and a leading fertiliser maker, was compelling dealers and farmers to buy non-subsidised products such as water-soluble fertilisers along with urea. The CCI noted that urea's maximum retail price is government-fixed and heavily subsidised, making it an essential input for farmers. The complainant submitted evidence including letters from government departments and dealers' associations, media reports, and video recordings showing forced sales. Despite repeated warnings from central and state authorities against the practice, complaints persisted across Maharashtra, the complainant said. The competition watchdog noted that RCF accounted for over 42 per cent of the urea supply in the state in 2023-24, far ahead of its nearest competitors. Given the regulated nature of urea distribution, farmers in Maharashtra were highly dependent on local manufacturers, it observed. The Commission said that "RCF holds a position of dominance in the market for sale and supply of Urea in the State of Maharashtra and by tying the sale of other products with that of Urea, it appears that it has leveraged its position to enter into or to protect the market for other products". Such leveraging by a dominant entity has been frowned upon under the scheme of the Act as it hinders fair competition in the market. In this context, the Commission is of the prima facie view that there appears to be a violation of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act, the regulator added. RCF, under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, operates units in Trombay and Thal in Maharashtra. It produces urea, complex fertilisers, micronutrients, and industrial chemicals.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government. Over the years, the world's richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law. The new law & an exception for BCCI The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices. This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions. The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.' This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny. The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act — it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies. This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board's claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered. It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates — such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month. Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015. Previous recommendations not implemented A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body's functioning as a 'closed door and back-room affair.' It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny. The committee recommended that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,' stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a 'public authority' and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries. However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation — leaving the matter in a legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members. The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Special CBI court exempts 3 more accused in Manesar land scam case
Chandigarh: The Special CBI court of Panchkula has decided to temporarily exempt three more persons, including a bureaucrat, while initiating the proceedings of framing charges in the Manesar land scam case involving former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 31 other accused, including former bureaucrats and private builders. The case came up for hearing on Thursday. As per a copy of the order accessed by TOI on Saturday, three more persons against whom the arguments on framing of charges shall not be initiated include Dhare Singh, the then chief town planner, former IAS DR Dhingra, the then Director Industries, and Kulwant Singh Lamba, the then deputy superintendent (town and country planning) department. The proceedings against the three have come to a standstill due to the pendency of SLPs in the Supreme Court. The apex court has already given relief to Dhare Singh and DR Dhingra, while the petition moved by Lamba is yet to come up for hearing. Meanwhile, three more accused to whom the court has given relief include former bureaucrats Sudeep Singh Dhullon, Murari Lal Tayal, and Rajeev Arora. The Special CBI judge has fixed Aug 22 as the next date of hearing to initiate proceedings or arguments on the issue of framing charges. While referring to Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh, and DR Dhingra, the judge has brought on record the orders and proceedings of the apex court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 3BHK Transformation Possible for ₹4.5 Lakh? HomeLane Get Quote Undo Notably, besides Hooda, the three ex-principal secretaries of Hooda's regime are faced with allegations under the PMLA case and DA case. It may be recalled that the issue concerns the 914 acres of land which was planned to be acquired for the creation of Industrial Model Township (IMT) in Manesar, Gurugram. Soon after the notification of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act while notifying the area to be acquired in Aug 2004, there was panic among the residents of villages identified for land acquisition. As a result, the builders and land mafia came into play and procured the lands from villagers at throwaway rates for abstaining from certain clearances. In 2007, the industrial department freed the land from the process of acquisition. It was alleged that the entire scam of builder-official and land mafia had political patronage, and the aggrieved moved the court. Finally, on the directions of the Supreme Court, the CBI started the probe and filed the chargesheet naming former CM Hooda. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
