Supreme Court Holds NGT Exceeded Jurisdiction in Auroville Crown Road Directions, Sets Aside Orders

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals by the Auroville Foundation against orders of the National Green Tribunal, Chennai, that had restrained further construction and directed preparation of a township plan and appointment of a joint committee with regard to the Crown Road and other works in Auroville. The appeals challenged the NGT's final order dated 28.04.2022 in O.A. No.239/2021 and an interim order dated 27.07.2022 in M.A. No.6/2022.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned NGT orders and held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue the directions impugned in Para 125(i) of its order. The Supreme Court found that the NGT had not identified any violation of the enactments listed in Schedule I to the NGT Act that would qualify as a “substantial question relating to environment” under Section 2(1)(m) and Section 14, and had therefore misdirected itself by issuing directions beyond its statutory remit. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As transpiring from the Section 14, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction over all civil cases where the substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Therefore, for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal under Section 14, it has to be shown that (1) a substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is involved; and (2) such questions arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I." The Court further recorded that the NGT had “completely misdirected itself by entering into the restricted domain of judicial review under the guise of applying ‘Precautionary Principle’.”

Background The dispute arose from an application before the NGT by residents challenging extensive tree-felling and construction activity by the Auroville Foundation, particularly works to complete the Crown Road and outer ring road visualised in the Master Plan originally conceptualised by the "Mother" and approved by authorities in 2001. The applicants sought interim injunctions restraining further cutting of trees and sought directions for a detailed development and mobility plan with requisite environmental assessments. The NGT initially restrained tree-felling and later, in its principal order, directed the Foundation to prepare “a proper township plan” for either the 778 ha in its possession or the larger area envisaged, and permitted completion of only parts of the crown road subject to inspection and recommendations of a Joint Committee. The Tribunal held that a large portion of the Crown Road was completed and that, while the area was not a “forest” for purposes of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the “Precautionary Principle” required oversight, tree-planting in a 1:10 ratio and other measures.

The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change had informed the Tribunal that the Auroville Township pre-dated the EIA Notification amendments and, on that basis, did not require fresh environmental clearance for the works. The Supreme Court noted that the NGT did not identify a violation of any specific enactment listed in Schedule I (Water Acts, Forest (Conservation) Act, Air Act, Environment (Protection) Act, etc.) and observed that the Tribunal itself had found the area “could not be treated as a Forest” in government records and was largely a man-made plantation. The Supreme Court recorded that the Auroville Master Plan was approved by competent authorities in 2001 and had statutory force under the Auroville Foundation Act, and held that the NGT’s direction to rework the Master Plan and to supervise road-width adjustments went beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Court quashed the impugned NGT orders; earlier interim stay (13.12.2023) on Para 125(i) had already noted prima facie lack of jurisdiction.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 347 (C.A. No(s). 5781-5782 of 2022) Case Title: The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment extract For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment extract