SC Overrules NGT on Auroville Project
Why focus: GS3 Environment: NGT Act 2010 jurisdiction vs EIA 2004 notification. Classic chronological and statutory trap for How-Many-Correct MCQs.
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: The NGT order paused the Auroville Township construction, demanding prior environmental clearance and a revised master plan. NOW: The Supreme Court struck down the NGT order, allowing the Auroville Foundation to resume construction without seeking a new environmental clearance.
- ▶
BEFORE: The NGT assumed broad jurisdiction to halt statutory town planning exercises using the Precautionary Principle, even for older projects. NOW: The SC restricted the NGT's powers, ruling it cannot override approved statutory town planning without a substantial question of law related to Schedule I of the NGT Act.
- ▶
BEFORE: Petitioners treated the 2004 EIA notification as applicable to ongoing construction projects. NOW: The SC clarified that the 2004 and 2006 EIA notifications cannot be applied retrospectively to construction projects that were already approved and substantially under construction by 2001.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
With Reference ToWith reference to the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment on the Auroville Township Project, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the National Green Tribunal can override statutory town planning exercises even if no substantial question of environment under the NGT Act arises. 2. The Court held that the Auroville Master Plan, approved in 2001, was exempt from the 2004 and 2006 EIA Notifications because it was not a new project. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?