CASE COMMENT:

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India

Submitted by:

Archisha Dhar

Division D, Batch 2021-26, B.A. LL.B.

PRN: 21010223011

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In

September 2023

Under the Guidance of

Ms. Kritika Ramya,

Symbiosis Law School NOIDA

 HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR V. UNION OF INDIA

(2019) 15 SCC 401

Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta

Background

The facts of the case involve a dispute around whether the Environmental Clearance

(EC) granted for the development of an airport at Mopa in Goa was in order. An

appeal in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) initially held that the project did not

compromise the environment, validating the EC, and stated that further safeguards

must be incorporated.1 The EC granted was appealed again in the Western Zonal

Bench of the NGT—which was also dismissed after a time before which the Deputy

Conservator of Forests had granted permission for felling trees at the site. 2

Following this, the High Court of Judicature in Bombay set aside the Deputy

Conservator’s Order, remanding the matter to the Principal Chief Conservator of

Forests—who stipulated several conditions for the cutting and felling the trees.

Following this, the High Court allowed for the enumeration of trees, stipulating that

felling could begin only after the State of Goa had obtained permission from the

NGT.3 The State then filed a miscellaneous application seeking permission before the

NGT, after which it disposed of both appeals and notification, upholding the EC and

reiterating its original judgment. In light of this latest verdict, the petitioner filed the

current suit before the Supreme Court of India.4

1
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401 [1]
2
Ibid [10]
3
Ibid [11]
4
Ibid [12]
Issues

The issue involved in this case has been given below as follows:

1. Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by the State of Goa

for the airport construction project covered all necessary environmental and

developmental concerns.

Rules

1. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006

2. Forest Act, 1927

3. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

4. Principle of Environmental Rule of Law

Arguments

Petitioner

The petitioners began their argument by stating that the aim of an Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) under the 2006 Notification 5 was to assess appropriately

the environmental cost of a proposed activity, generally a major developmental

project.6 It was submitted that the respondents had majorly concealed material facts

from the EIA by refusing to disclose that the project required almost 55,000 trees to

be felled—indeed, the final report stated that the area acquired had only a few trees,

mainly bushes. In the affidavit submitted by the State of Goa, the actual number of

54,676 trees required to be felled was revealed. 7 Furthermore, the respondents also

concealed the presence of Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) in Maharashtra—failure

5
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (2006)
6
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [15]
7
Ibid [16.1]
to mention this also amounted to a significant omission. 8 Furthermore, despite the

State of Maharashtra comprising almost forty per cent of the study area, sampling of

the same was not carried out there; it was restricted to Goa. 9 Neither was the wildlife

in the surrounding forests mentioned, where the appellants have found various

mammals to be present.10

The petitioners’ counsel also noted that in the current case, the NGT was empowered

to conduct a merits review under Section 20 11 read with 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010; 12

however, here, it relied simply upon the process conducted by the Expert Appraisal

Committee (EAC), abdicating its own jurisdiction.13

Respondent

The respondents began their arguments by denying there was any reserved forest

declared under Section 20(2) of the Forest Act, 1927,14 within fifteen kilometres of

the project boundaries.15 It was submitted that they had relied upon the plain

meaning of reserved forest under the Act, which is only given such status when a

notification is issued under Section 20(2) of the same.16

Respondents also stated that while sites specifically located in Maharashtra were not

sampled, data was tracked across a radius of ten kilometres from the proposed area,

which fell within Maharashtra, and that the same was in line with Central Pollution

Control Board (CPCB) guidelines.17 Respondents also denied that no avifaunal study

8
Ibid [16.2]
9
Ibid [16.4]
10
Ibid [16.5]
11
National Green Tribunal Act 2010, s 20
12
National Green Tribunal Act 2010, s 16(h)
13
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [19]
14
Forest Act 1927, s 20(2)
15
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [21.3]
16
Ibid [21.2]
17
Ibid [22]
was carried out, stating that the EIA report specifically dealt with the same 18 and that

the ESZs nearby were not declared on account of the same being located outside of

the proposed site.19 The respondents also submitted that the need for an airport was

imminent and that the current airport in Goa had been overburdened, 20 emphasising

the importance of tourism in the State’s economy.21

The respondent counsel argued that a simple defect in the procedure should not be

the cause of the complete revocation of a project, which could provide a massive

benefit to the public at large, especially since it is submitted that no significant

environmental impact would be caused by the same.22

Ratio

The ratio of the current case can be found in Paragraph 157, which states that in the

era of environmental governance, the means are as significant as the ends; the

process of reaching a decision is as significant as the decision itself. 23

Judgment

The Bench unanimously found the State of Goa to have patently and abjectly failed in

disclosing transparent information regarding the environmental composition of the

area24 and that the EIA report had, in fact, failed to notice the ESZs within a distance

of ten kilometres of the project site.25 The EAC had also neglected to conduct a proper

public consultation as required by the 2006 Notification. 26 The bench stated that the

Notification provided that deliberate concealment or misleading of material facts are

18
Ibid [23]
19
Ibid [24]
20
Ibid [29.2]
21
Ibid [29.3]
22
Ibid [29.4]
23
Ibid [157]
24
Ibid [72]
25
Ibid [70.1] [70.2]
26
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (2006)
grounds for rejection of the application and lead to the cancellation of any prior EC

granted based upon the same. 27 The justification of revenue and employment

generation being a more significant need was considered a flimsy excuse, and the

glaring inaccuracies in both the project proponent conduct and EAC were criticised

heavily.

The Honourable bench also rejected the interpretation of the word ‘forest’ as

submitted by the respondents, stating that when the same is used without reference

to a statute such as the Forest Act, it must be taken as the ordinary meaning—since

the aim is to recognise all aspects of the environment in that area so as to predict the

impact of a potential project. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 28 was cited here, where it was stated

that the word forest must be understood as its dictionary meaning—so as to cover all

statutorily recognised forests, irrespective of reserved status. 29 The same was stated

in the Re Noida Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, as well.30 Thus,

with regard to the 2006 Notification, the word forest must be treated ordinarily since

the motive is to protect and identify them rather than overlook and destroy. 31

The judgment also dealt with the application of the environmental rule of law—

indeed, the first case where it was done so. 32 The Supreme Court here stated that ‘a

quest for environmental governance within a rule of law paradigm is fundamental to

the outcome of this case.’ 33 As such, it was held that the 2006 Notification must be

27
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [74]
28
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 [4]
29
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [74] [75]
30
Noida Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, In re (2011) 1 SCC 744 [35]
31
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [77]
32
Himanshu Ahlawat & Sujith Koonan, ‘Environmental Rule of Law in India: A Transformative Principle or Old
Wine in a New Bottle?’ 13(1) JILS (2022) 133, 137
<https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Himanshu-and-Sujith.pdf> accessed 05 September
2023
33
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar [142]
read in line with India’s efforts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

as given by the United Nations—not only because they formed a vital custom within

the international comity as a whole but also because many of them exemplified

India’s own constitutional principles within them. As such, the means are to be as

significant as the ends—however profitable they may be, the ends cannot justify

dishonourable means.34

The Supreme Court ultimately held that in the case being discussed, the EIA report

had been formed through a significant breach of due process, evidenced by egregious

concealment of vital information, 35 and that, as such, it cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, the NGT, in not conducting a merits review, had failed to discharge its

essential adjudicatory function and had been unable to comprehend the power

vested in it under the NGT Act. 36 Thus, in light of the above, neither the process of

decision-making nor the decision itself can pass legal muster. Subsequently, the

appeal was allowed, with the Court issuing directions for a new EIA to be committed

and the entire matter to be re-examined by the EAC.37

Rules of Interpretation applied by the Hon’ble Judge

The above case saw the application of the mischief rule and the grammatical rule in

the interpretation of the word ‘forest’ to allow for its protection.

The literal or grammatical rule emphasises technical definition, as can be seen both

in the definition of the word ‘forest’ used in this case as well as in Godavarman

Thirumulpad and Okhla Bird Sanctuary—the statutory definition in the general

sense is used to provide a wider ambit.

34
Ibid [157]
35
Ibid [159]
36
Ibid [160]
37
Ibid [163]
The mischief rule, or rule of purposive construction, deals with interpretation

focussed on preventing the original wrong the statutory provision was aimed to curb.

Here, the aim of the 2006 notification was undoubtedly to notice and safeguard

forests rather than overlook them and aid in their destruction; as such, the more

expansive interpretation allows for the original purpose of the same to be achieved.

The author supports the same interpretation on account of the broader

interpretation being in line with the United Nations SDGs, as well as the Paris

Agreement, ratified by India in 2016. As such, the verdict and interpretation are in

line with the overarching principles and policy currently adopted by India.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is important to mention that the above case is undoubtedly a

landmark judgment, marked both by it being the first case to set the precedent for

the application of the Environmental Rule of Law Principle within the country, as

well as due to its statement of the powers of the National green Tribunal of the Act

and clear demarcation of the requirements of environmental impact assessment in

the future.
Bibliography

Cases

Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401

Noida Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, In re (2011) 1 SCC 744

Statutes

Forest Act 1927

National Green Tribunal Act 2010

Command Papers

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Environmental Impact Assessment

Notification (2006)

Books

Ahlawat & Koonan, ‘Environmental Rule of Law in India: A Transformative Principle

or Old Wine in a New Bottle?’ 13(1) JILS (2022) 133,

<https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Himanshu-and-

Sujith.pdf> accessed 05 September 2023