Jurisdictional Limits of NGT: The NGT can only exercise jurisdiction when a substantial question relating to the environment arises from the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act. In this case, no such question was raised. (Paras 7, 8, 9, and 14.) Statutory Master Plan: The Auroville Master Plan, approved in 2001, had attained statutory force and could not be interfered with by the NGT. (Paras 12, 13, and 17.) Sustainable Development: The Court emphasized the need to balance the right to development with the right to a clean environment, upholding the principle of Sustainable Development.

The Supreme Court quashed the NGT’s orders, holding that: The NGT had no jurisdiction to interfere with the implementation of the Auroville Master Plan, which had statutory force under the A.F. Act. The area in question could not be treated as a forest, and no clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was required. The NGT’s application of the Precautionary Principle was unjustified, as no substantial question relating to environmental violation under the NGT Act was raised.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Articles 14, 19, and 21 – Right to Development and Right to Clean Environment.

2. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) – Sections 14, 15, and 20 – Jurisdiction, Relief, and Principles of Sustainable Development.

3. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environmental Clearance (EC) and Precautionary Principle.

4. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Applicability of Forest Clearance.

5. Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 (A.F. Act) – Statutory Master Plan and Overriding Effect.

Subjects:

• Sustainable Development – Balancing Ecology and Development.

• Precautionary Principle – Environmental Protection.

• Jurisdictional Limits – NGT’s Authority.

• Statutory Master Plan – Auroville Township.

• Environmental Clearance (EC) – Applicability in Ongoing Projects.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The Auroville Foundation appealed against the National Green Tribunal (NGT) orders directing the preparation of a new township plan and imposing restrictions on construction activities, including the Crown Road project.

2. Remedy Sought: The Foundation sought to quash the NGT’s orders, arguing that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the implementation of the already approved Master Plan.

3. Reason for Filing: The NGT had directed the Foundation to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) and appointed a Joint Committee to inspect the area, despite the project being ongoing since before the 2004 EIA Notification.

4. Previous Decisions: The NGT had allowed partial construction of the Crown Road but imposed conditions, including tree planting and restrictions on further tree cutting.

Issues:

1. Whether the NGT had jurisdiction to interfere with the implementation of the Auroville Master Plan, which was approved in 2001 and had statutory force under the A.F. Act?

2. Whether the area in question could be treated as a “Forest” requiring clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

3. Whether the NGT’s application of the Precautionary Principle was justified in the absence of a substantial question relating to environmental violation under the NGT Act?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant (Auroville Foundation):
  a. The NGT overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the preparation of a new township plan, as the Master Plan was already approved and had statutory force.
  b. The area in question was not a forest but a man-made plantation, and thus, no forest clearance was required.
  c. The project predated the 2004 EIA Notification, and no Environmental Clearance (EC) was necessary.

• Respondents (Original Applicants):
  a. The construction activities, particularly the Crown Road, were causing environmental damage to the Darkali forest, which should be treated as a deemed forest.
  b. The NGT was justified in applying the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment.