The Auroville Foundation vs. Navroz Kersasp Mody

2025 INSC 347
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:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.03.17
17:16:26 IST
Reason:
C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 of 34


protection as mandated in T.N. Godavarman
1
Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others
case.
II. The Respondents Applicant therefore had sought
the following reliefs in the said O.A. No.239/2021.

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 12 of 34


st
IV. The Appellant-Foundation (1 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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:

As transpiring from the Section 14, the Tribunal has the
7.
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 21 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
2
Development , this Court held as follows:

2
(2020) 9 SCC 781
C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 OF 2022 Page 22 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.
3
Central Empowered Committee .
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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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
4
Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India & Others , 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 29 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.
5
16. In Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Ors. ,
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 30 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.”

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 31 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 32 of 34


development and the right to clean environment. In
6
N.D. Jayal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , 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 33 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;
th
17 MARCH, 2025

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