‘Show us a single project in this country welcomed by environmental activists’: Supreme Court

‘How country will progress?’

“The problem is in this country, the kind of litigations are filed are only to stall development projects. That is the problem…See you people don’t want ports to be expanded. How the country is going to progress? We can’t understand,” the Supreme Court remarked.

The Supreme Court clarified that it has always been concerned with environmental issues and are critical of anything that affects the environment.

Emphasising the need for development, the court remarked that the it would appreciate it if the environmentalists or activists approached the court with effective suggestions aimed at ensuring sustainable development and protection of the environment.

“We appreciate if a person comes in that these are precautions required to be taken. Please go ahead but make sure that these are the precautions you take,” the CJI said.

The Supreme Court discouraged attempts to stall the developmental projects.

“First attempt is you stall everything. That sends a message from where the litigation is being originated. That creates a problem,” the CJI remarked.

During the hearing, the bench said the NGT has passed a very detailed order in the matter.

Senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that their point of grievance was that the area was extremely rich in fisheries in Gujarat.

“90% of the fish landings happens in Saurahstra. If a project after 13 years could not take place for the asking, they have given them an expansion, and it is a first appellate statutory appeal. It is supposed to do a merit review. It is not supposed to do judicial review. This can’t even constitute a judicial review,” Shenoy argued.

She further asserted if something was found to be economically unviable, why, after 13 years, an expansion was given.

To this Justice Bagchi responded, “That may not be a relevant point for an impact assessment. Economic viability is not a real consideration for the environment”.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi also observed that one of the key concerns for the National Green Tribunal (NGT) would have been whether the area in question was a turtle nesting ground. Referring to the inspection report, he noted that it “unequivocally says” the project site is not a turtle nesting ground.

In response, Shenoy argued that it stated that there were no turtle nesting grounds in the project area and that marine mammals were not observed near the project region. She pointed out that an annexure to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report in fact, reached a contrary conclusion.

“What it says is that there are no turtle nesting grounds in the project…page 4 marine mammals are not observed near the project region. Now the annexure filed to this EIA report, which was CSIR NIA report, finds to the contrary,” the counsel contended.

The counsel further pointed out to the Supreme Court that the list of marine mammals reported from the area includes Olive Ridley Turtles, humpback whales, etc.

Olive Ridley Turtles (File photo)

Justice Bagchi emphasised that the mere transient movement of marine species could not by itself establish the existence of a nesting ground.

“There can be a transient movement even of a humpback whale, will you say that a humpback whale nests there? It may be a rare sighting of the whale,” the Supreme Court observed.

The CJI observed that the petitioner, acting as a bona fide person, could have pointed out specific deficiencies in the EIA report and urged that those aspects also be taken care of during the execution of the project.

“You should have done one thing. This EIA report as a bona fide person, he could point out that you have done a commendable job despite the fact that there are deficiencies I can notice in the report. Make sure when you execute the project, these things are also taken care of,” CJI said.

The counsel further submitted that there is a detailed impact on the fisheries both at the construction and the operation stage. She also pointed out that most of the landings of Bombay Duck take place in the region. Therefore, she prayed that the NGT may consider the appeal and pass a reasoned order.

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant to file a review plea before the NGT to point out whether or not the issue raised on his behalf was duly considered in the environmental impact assessment report.

The bench has asked the NGT to consider it.

The court also remarked that initially, one may have apprehensions when a project is proposed, including genuine ones, regarding the impact on the environment. It added that the people coming to the courts should not say that everything should be stalled, as it affects the country’s progress.

NGT sounds alarm over surge in Olive Ridley deaths

In February, the green body took serious note of the alarming rise in the deaths of Olive Ridley turtles along the Tamil Nadu coast anddirected state and central government authorities to “strictly” implement conservation measures mandated by the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising JusticePushpa Sathyanarayana(judicial member) andDr Prashant Gargava(expert member) disposed of a suo motu plea concerning theendangered speciesafter months of monitoring reports fromTamil Naduand Andhra Pradesh.

“It would be appropriate to direct the authorities to strictly comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India…and to adhere to the SOPs, Government Orders, and memoranda issued in this regard, so as to ensure that there are no further deaths of theendangeredOlive Ridleyturtles,” the NGT said on February 17.