The Supreme Court docket at this time(August 22) set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal, which directed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Artwork of Dwelling Worldwide Centre to pay Rs. 5 crore for the harm brought about to the river Yamuna floodplains on account of its World Tradition Competition organised by Vyakti Vikas Kendra in March 2016.
A bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice NK Singh, allowed the attraction filed by Vyakti Vikas Kendra, an entity working the Artwork of Dwelling Worldwide Centre, in opposition to the order handed by NGT in December 2017. The Bench held that there isn’t a direct proof that the cultural pageant brought about harm to the River Yamuna’s fragile ecosystem.
The bench directed the Delhi Growth Authority (DDA) to refund the nice of Rs 5 crore paid by Vyakti Vikas Kendra.
The case arose from the World Tradition Competition, held from March 11 to 13, 2016, on about 25 hectares of the Yamuna’s energetic floodplain upstream of the DND flyway. The occasion had obtained permissions from the involved authorities, together with the Delhi Growth Authority (DDA).
Alleging that the pageant brought about in depth harm to the floodplains, one Manoj Misra, the convener of marketing campaign Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, and two others, Pramod Tyagi, and environmental activist Anand Arya, approached the NGT.
The NGT had initially imposed an environmental compensation of ₹5 crore shortly earlier than the pageant, after an knowledgeable committee reported that the floodplain had been severely tampered with throughout preparations. The tribunal subsequently held the organisers liable for restoration and rehabilitation and directed that the ₹5 crore deposit be used for the work.
The Supreme Court docket, nevertheless, discovered vital shortcomings within the foundation on which the NGT attributed the harm to the organisers. It famous that the floodplain was already in a broken situation earlier than the occasion web site was handed over. Earlier experiences had recorded deterioration and non-implementation of restoration instructions, whereas the organisers themselves had knowledgeable the DDA about development particles already mendacity on the web site and obtained permission to take away it.
The Court docket was notably essential of the reliance positioned on a September 5, 2015 satellite tv for pc picture and the knowledgeable committee’s evaluation of the pre-event situation. It noticed that the picture appeared inconsistent with different contemporaneous materials displaying the floodplain in a broken state. The Court docket additionally famous {that a} later authorities officers’ committee discovered grass and water on the web site, no particles, no vital wetland or water physique inside the allotted space, and no vital distinction between pre- and post-event imagery.
One other key challenge was the excellence between restoration and rehabilitation. The Supreme Court docket held that the 2 ideas couldn’t be handled as interchangeable. Restoration seeks to return an affected space to its unique state, whereas rehabilitation goals to make an ecosystem totally practical and able to offering optimum ecological providers. In accordance with the Court docket, the NGT erred by imposing a broader rehabilitation obligation on the appellant when the proceedings involved alleged harm attributable to the occasion.
The Court docket additionally discovered that the knowledgeable committee itself had acknowledged that the ecological situation of the location earlier than the occasion couldn’t be reliably decided. Regardless of this limitation, the committee went on to suggest broader rehabilitation measures, together with ecological restoration works. The Supreme Court docket held that the committee had exceeded its mandate and that the NGT had relied on these suggestions in a fashion that expanded the dispute past the query of harm attributable to the occasion.
The Bench additional criticised the NGT for successfully treating its March 9, 2016 interim order as ultimate. The Supreme Court docket noticed that the interim order had been handed on the idea of an preliminary visible inspection and with out a full appreciation of the competing proof. Because the NGT had itself subsequently clarified that the order was interim and with out prejudice to the events’ rights, the findings in that order must have been reconsidered in the course of the ultimate adjudication.
On the similar time, the Supreme Court docket careworn that the DDA remained liable for the broader rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplains. The Court docket noticed that the authority had duties arising from the general public belief doctrine and was required to take preventive measures to keep away from additional deterioration of the energetic floodplain. Nonetheless, it clarified that the legality of the DDA’s permission for the 2016 occasion was not a difficulty earlier than the Court docket.
As a consequence of its ruling, the Supreme Court docket ordered the ₹5 crore environmental compensation deposited by Vyakti Vikas Kendra India to be refunded by the DDA inside 4 weeks. The Court docket additionally made clear that the DDA should proceed with the rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplains in accordance with the plans and instructions already issued by the NGT.
Case Particulars: VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA v MANOJ MISRA (DEAD) AND ORS.|C.A. No. 683/2018
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 847
Click here to read the judgment
Appearances
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Nikhil M. Sakhardande, Senior Advocate; Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocate-on-Document; Ms. Shubhra Swami, Advocate; Mr. Nipun Katyal, Advocate; Mr. Manan Sharma, Advocate; and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rahul, Advocate; Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Advocate; Ms. Tara, Advocate; Ms. Ok. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Advocate-on-Document; Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nitin Mishra, Advocate-on-Document; Ms. Mitali Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Neoma Vasdev, Advocate; Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Advocate; Ms. Anushka Mamgain, Advocate; Ms. Shivani Sethi, Advocate; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate-on-Document; Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Further Solicitor Normal; Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Advocate; Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Advocate; Ms. Suhasini Sen, Advocate; Mrs. Chitrangda Rastaravara, Advocate; Mr. S. N. Terdal, Advocate-on-Document; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate-on-Document; Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advocate; Mr. T. S. Sabrish, Advocate; Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Advocate-on-Document; Mr. Sabarish Subramanium, Advocate; Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocate-on-Document; Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate; Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Aditi Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Suraj, Advocate; Mr. Manoj Ok. Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocate; Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Advocate; Ms. Itisha Awasthi, Advocate; Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate; and Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Advocate.
