Supreme Court holds General Conditions in EIA Schedule do not apply to Building and Township projects; upholds 2025 clarification

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard appeals by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI), Godrej Properties Ltd. and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd. challenging the National Green Tribunal’s order of 09.08.2024 which directed that building and construction and township projects falling within 5 km of protected, critically or severely polluted or eco‑sensitive areas be treated as Category A and appraised at the Central level. The appeals arose under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and engaged the scope and interpretation of the EIA Notification, 2006 and subsequent amendments and clarificatory instruments issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC).

The Court disposed of the appeals, holding that the questions raised had been adjudicated in a related writ (Vanashakti v. Union of India) and that the 2025 notification — which expressly provided that “General Conditions shall not apply” to items 8(a) and 8(b) — predominantly “held the field” subject to the limited reading in that writ. The Court found that a plain reading of the EIA 2006 Schedule showed the General Conditions applied only where Column 5 expressly provided for them and therefore Entries 8(a) and 8(b) did not attract General Conditions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also cited its earlier observation in In Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary that “the question of application of the general condition to the projects/activities listed in the Schedule also needs to be put beyond any debate or dispute.”

Background The dispute originated from an Original Application before the NGT seeking that large‑scale building and township projects located within specified distances of protected, critically polluted or eco‑sensitive areas be appraised centrally by sectoral Expert Appraisal Committees. The NGT allowed the application and directed MoEF&CC to treat such projects as Category A. Developers challenged the NGT order before this Court, contending that Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA 2006 Schedule were deliberately left out of the General Conditions and were intended to be appraised at State level by SEAC/SEIAA, citing the Okhla Bird Sanctuary decision and Office Memoranda (24.05.2011; 13.03.2020). The Kerala High Court had earlier quashed the 2014 notification that expressly excluded General Conditions on procedural grounds; that quashing precipitated competing administrative steps including a 2025 MoEF&CC notification restoring the exclusion and subsequent Writ Petition No. 166 of 2025 (Vanashakti), in which this Court partly upheld the 2025 notification but struck down Note 1 to Entry 8(a).

Having found that the issues were substantially addressed in the writ proceedings, the Court endorsed the view that Entries 8(a) and 8(b) did not attract General Conditions as a matter of statutory construction, and disposed of the appeals accordingly. The judgment recorded that the 2025 notification (excluding the quashed Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) “presently holds the field.” All pending applications were disposed of and there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024; Civil Appeal No. 5532 of 2025; Civil Appeal No. 5533 of 2025 Case Title: Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others; Godrej Properties Ltd. v. Union of India & Others; Sai Sahara Developers Ltd. v. Union of India & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior Counsel (appearing for CREDAI, Godrej Properties Ltd., Sai Sahara Developers Ltd.) For the Respondent(s): Additional Solicitor General of India (for Union of India); Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 3