Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court has set aside directions issued by the National Green Tribunal concerning the Auroville Township project. The Division Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale recorded that “no substantial question relating to environment had arisen, nor violation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule I was alleged.” The Court found that the Tribunal acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in issuing directions that restrained the Auroville Foundation from proceeding with construction under its approved Master Plan.

The Court observed that the Tribunal “committed gross error in assuming the jurisdiction and giving directions untenable in law” while intervening with a township project that had received statutory approval. The Supreme Court, by its order, set aside both the Tribunal’s final order dated 28 April 2022 and the interim order dated 27 July 2022.

Also Read: Child’s Well-Being”: Supreme Court Disallows Mother’s Presence During Father’s Visitation Rights

The appeal arose from proceedings before the Tribunal where applicants challenged the Auroville Foundation’s construction of the Crown Road and other works forming part of the approved Master Plan for Auroville. The Tribunal, invoking the “Precautionary Principle,” directed the Foundation to cease construction activities pending the preparation of a new township plan and procurement of Environmental Clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

The project at the centre of the dispute concerns the Auroville Township, a community envisioned by Mirra Alfassa (“the Mother”) as an international universal township dedicated to the ideals of human unity. The Charter of Auroville, issued by the Mother, included principles such as, “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.”

The Auroville Foundation Act, 1988, was enacted by the Government of India to establish a statutory foundation to manage and develop Auroville according to its charter. Pursuant to the Act, a Master Plan was approved in 1999 by the Governing Board and Residents’ Assembly of the Foundation and was further approved by the Town and Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of Urban Development, on 15 February 2001. The Master Plan was notified on 16 August 2010 and published in the Official Gazette on 28 August 2010. The statutory framework also included the constitution of the Auroville Town Development Council under Standing Orders issued from 2011 onwards, the latest being Standing Order No. 1/2022.

The applicants before the Tribunal challenged the construction activities by alleging that the area known as Darkali Forest, through which the Crown Road was proposed, was a deemed forest under the principles laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. They sought interim relief to restrain further tree felling and a direction for preparation of a new development plan based on environmental impact assessments.

The Auroville Foundation, in its counter-affidavit, submitted that the area did not qualify as a forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that all activities were in furtherance of the already approved Master Plan. It was submitted 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.”

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), in its affidavit, submitted that the Auroville project commenced prior to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 1994 and its 2004 amendment, and hence did not require Environmental Clearance. The Ministry stated 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 amendments for grant of Environmental Clearance.”

The Tribunal, however, issued directions restraining the Foundation from proceeding with further construction until a new township plan was prepared and Environmental Clearance obtained. The Tribunal also permitted limited continuation of work on the Crown Road, subject to recommendations of a Joint Committee, and directed planting of trees in a ratio of 1:10 for trees felled.

The Supreme Court recorded that “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.”

The Court observed that the Master Plan had attained statutory force upon approval under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988. It stated, “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.” The Court further recorded 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.”

The Bench noted that the Tribunal itself had concluded that the area in question was not a forest for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Tribunal recorded 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.”

The Supreme Court observed that despite this conclusion, the Tribunal issued directions that were not within its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act. It recorded that “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.”

Referring to its own precedents, the Court reiterated the framework under which the Tribunal can act. It stated, “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 enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I.”

The Court observed that the Tribunal's actions lacked statutory basis and recorded, “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.”

In relation to balancing development and environmental protection, the Court recalled that “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.”

Also Read: “Appeal Is a Creature of Statute, No Right to Challenge Interim Orders under Section 34”: Calcutta High Court Declares UOI Appeal “Not Maintainable” and Dismisses Arbitration Plea

The Court concluded by setting aside the NGT’s orders, recording that “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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Ravi Arora

Case Title: The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 347
Case Number: C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 of 2022
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B. Varale

[Read/Download order]