08 Jul 2025
This update highlights recent developments in Indian environmental law from May 2025, including judgments, legislative measures and regulatory actions.
Partner: Rajat Jariwal, Senior Associate: Gaurav Sharma, Associate: Dev Chand
The month of May 2025 saw some pivotal judicial pronouncements and significant regulatory updates. The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment definitively striking down the practice of issuing ex-post facto (retrospective) Environmental Clearances (EC) and restraining the Central Government from making future legislative attempts to permit the grant of such clearances. It also affirmed the imposition of enhanced penalties for tree-felling activities in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) and, separately, declared Zudpi jungles as protected forests, while providing a framework for existing communities to continue inhabiting and utilising the land. Concurrently, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued an ultimatum directing the Odisha government to either demolish unauthorised structures erected in the Deomali Hill area for ‘Eco-tourism’ or obtain requisite forest clearances.
On the regulatory front, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) simplified procedures for obtaining certificates of origin for cultivated medicinal plants through the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Rules, 2025. Additionally, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued draft guidelines for silica sand mining and washing plants, and for assessing Environmental Compensation under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, inviting comments from stakeholders. It also published a detailed standard operating procedure (SOP) and checklist for the utilisation of spent Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) in Para Amino Phenol manufacturing, enhancing oversight on hazardous waste management. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) mandated that all new and upcoming construction and demolition projects exceeding 500 square metres in area within the National Capital Region (NCR) must be registered on its dust control portal, in an attempt to combat construction dust emissions.
The key developments are discussed in detail below.
On 16 May 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the MoEF&CC notification dated 14 March 2017 (2017 Notification) and a corresponding Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2021 (2021 OM).1 The 2017 Notification had permitted the grant of ex-post facto EC for projects and undertakings, while the 2021 OM provided for the procedure to be employed for such grants.
This decision settles the long-standing debate surrounding the legality of ex-post facto ECs, a subject dealt with before by the Supreme Court, including in Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v Union of India and Ors.,2 which found that the issuance of ex-post facto ECs is not outrightly impermissible so long as the EC was granted in compliance with applicable regulations.
The Division Bench in the present case found that, by their nature, the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM effectively regularised construction activities and projects undertaken without obtaining the prior EC mandated for projects and activities listed in the Schedules to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification).
The Supreme Court reiterated its stance from Common Cause v Union of India and Ors.,3 and Alembic Pharmaceuticals v Rohit Prajapati,4 where it was held that the concept of an ex-post facto clearance is fundamentally contrary to the EIA Notification and its underlying legal framework.
The Court criticised the 2021 OM, issued 15 years after the EIA Notification, for attempting to protect violators who had acted with full knowledge of the consequences, demonstrating a scant regard for regulations. Accordingly, the Court quashed the two instruments and restrained the Central Government from undertaking any further legislative measures to regularise acts done in contravention of the EIA Notification.
Importantly, the Court clarified that ECs already granted under the 2017 Notification until the date of this judgment will remain unaffected, providing stability for projects that had obtained such clearances.
The Supreme Court recently ordered the imposition and recovery of enhanced penalties, as suggested by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), for illegal tree-felling in the TTZ.5 The Court’s decision follows the Uttar Pradesh government’s failure to amend the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, to address inadequate penalties, as directed by the Court in an earlier order in November 2024.
Recognising the need for a deterrent to the prevalent tree-felling in the area, the Court sanctioned the recovery of penalties ranging from INR 5,000 to 10,000 for private trees illegally felled by farmers and other persons, and INR 25,000 for tree-felling offences covered under the Indian Forests Act, 1927.
In a significant ruling,6 the Supreme Court has declared Zudpi jungles as Protected Forests under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FC Act). This decision stems from a series of legal challenges, and balances the need for forest conservation with the need to preserve established rights and livelihoods of communities that have been utilising these lands for decades.
Background of the ruling
On 12 December 1996, the Supreme Court broadened the definition of ‘forest’ to include its dictionary meaning and all areas recorded as forests in government records (1996 Order). It also directed an immediate cessation of all ongoing non-forest activities within any forest land in the country without prior approval of the Central Government.
This led to an application before the Court by the Nagpur Quarry Owners Welfare Association, which was denied permission for stone-quarrying in a Zudpi jungle. The Court sought recommendations from the CEC in 2019. Based on the CEC’s recommendations, the state of Maharashtra filed a batch of applications before the Supreme Court, seeking exclusion of these jungles from the ambit of the FC Act. The state argued that these lands had historically been used for non-forestry purposes and were incorrectly classified as forest lands in government records. Given the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court requested further recommendations from the CEC, which submitted its report in 2025.
Key directives of the Court
After considering the CEC’s 2025 report acknowledging the long-standing presence of communities, public amenities and agricultural activities in Zudpi areas, the Court partially accepted the CEC’s recommendations. The key aspects of the Court’s ruling are:
Zudpi jungle lands are now considered ‘Forest lands’: In line with the 1996 Order, these areas will fall within the scope of the FC Act.
Protection for existing land allotments: The state of Maharashtra can seek Central Government approval under Section 2(i) of the FC Act to delete from the ‘List of Forest Areas’ any land allotments made by the competent authority up till the 1996 Order, provided their classification remains unchanged. This offers relief to communities who have built homes, established livelihoods through agriculture, or utilised these lands for public amenities like schools and health centres for over half a century.
Submission of consolidated proposals: The state of Maharashtra must submit consolidated proposals for each district, ensuring that the land use of approved allotments is not changed in the future, and that transfers are permitted only through inheritance.
No compensatory afforestation required: The Central Government has been directed to approve these proposals without imposing conditions for compensatory afforestation or Net Present Value levies.
Accountability for post-1996 allotments: In its proposals, the state of Maharashtra must provide reasons and a list of responsible officers for allotments made after the 1996 order, which are in violation of the said order.
Declaration of fragmented land parcels: All fragmented land parcels of less than three hectares and not adjoining any forest areas are declared as Protected Forests under Section 29 of the FC Act.
Restrictions on use diversion: If the state government requires these lands for non-forestry purposes, detailed proposals must be submitted under the FC Act. Moreover, these lands cannot be diverted to any non-governmental entities.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies the status of the Zudpi jungles, safeguarding crucial forest areas while providing a framework for protecting the rights of communities that have historically depended on these lands.
NGT Eastern Zone bench, in a judgment on 16 May 2025, directed the state of Odisha to either obtain Central Government approval under the FC Act within three months or demolish structures built for an eco-tourism project on Deomali Hill Top Table Land and restore the site.7
The case arose from the state Forest Department’s construction of tourist cottages and planting of tropical pine saplings on the Deomali Hill Top Table Land as part of an eco-tourism project under the Swadesh Darshan Scheme. The petitioners argued non-compliance with the MoEF&CC’s eco-tourism policy.
While the state contended the land was un-surveyed and not officially a forest, the NGT reiterated that the definition of ‘Forest Land’, under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, includes un-demarcated areas. The Tribunal also rejected arguments citing the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, seeking the benefit of exemption, noting the Supreme Court’s stay on the amendment in recent proceedings (Ashok Kumar Sharma v Union of India).8
On 22 May 2025, the DPCC issued a notification to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction dust in the NCR.9 This notification mandates that all current and upcoming construction and demolition projects with a plot area of 500 square meters or more register on the DPCC’s Dust Control Web Portal. Registered projects are also required to conduct self-audits of their dust control measures using the parameters provided on the portal.
To ensure compliance, the DPCC has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to make this registration a mandatory prerequisite for the sanction of building plans. Consequently, municipal authorities are now required to withhold building plan sanctions until the project is duly registered on the portal.
The MoEF&CC has notified the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Rules, 2025, simplifying the procedure for obtaining a certificate of origin for cultivated medicinal plants.
Section 3 of the Biodiversity Act, 2002 mandates prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) for non-residents and foreign entities seeking access to Indian biological resources or associated knowledge for research or commercial utilisation. Upon securing this approval, Section 7(1) of the Act permits access to cultivated medicinal plants, subject to a certificate of origin obtained from the Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC).
The amendment specifically revises Rule 19 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024, which governs the procedure for issuance of such a certificate. Previously, applicants were required to submit detailed self-declaration (in physical or digital mode), including specific cultivation data, to the BMC. The revised Rule 19 now shifts the onus of maintaining comprehensive cultivation records for medicinal plants on the BMC.
Going forward, applications for certificates of origin must be submitted in the new Form 11-A on the NBA’s web portal.
The amendment further streamlines the process by removing previous timelines and the escalation mechanism under Rule 19(4), thereby digitising and expediting the overall process.
The CPCB issued comprehensive draft Guidelines for Silica Sand Mining and Washing Plants and invited public comments and suggestions until 31 May 2025.10
The guidelines have been formulated in response to a directive of the NGT in Devidas Khatri v Union of India and Ors., dated 29 November 2024, mandating the CPCB to develop detailed guidelines for statutory regulators to adhere to when granting permission or consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and issuing No-Objection Certificates under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for silica sand mining and washing operations.
The guidelines emphasise proactive measures to prevent the polluting effects of mining, including specific physical conditions on the extent of operations and haulage logistics to mitigate groundwater seepage and surface runoff.
The CPCB recommends that mining leaseholders adopt robust dust control measures. These include installing stationary anti-smog guns for dust, spraying acceptable fugitive dust control compounds, such as water and calcium chloride, on roads and stockpiles, and regularly cleaning roads used for loading and unloading activities.
For silica sand washing activities, the guidelines prescribe strict conditions for groundwater extraction and overall water usage. They also recommend the re-utilisation of waste by-products, such as clay and rejected siliceous sand, generated during the washing process.
This initiative by the CPCB underscores a concerted effort to enhance environmental oversight and promote sustainable practices within the silica sand industry. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the draft guidelines and, once they are finalised, adopt their recommendations.
The CPCB has published the draft Guidelines for Imposition of Environment Compensation under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (HWM Rules), inviting comments and suggestions from stakeholders until 5 June 2025.11
These draft guidelines aim to standardise the procedure and computation methods for regulators to assess the Environmental Compensation. They introduce two distinct regimes for Environmental Compensation addressing:
Breaches of Extended Producer Responsibility: For Producers and Importers of base oils and lubrication oils who fail to fulfil their Extended Producer Responsibility targets under the HWM Rules.
Non-compliance with used oil regulations: For producers, recyclers, importers, collection agents and bulk consumers who do not comply with the used oil regulations stipulated in the HWM Rules.
The proposed rates for Environmental Compensation have been derived based on the costs involved in collecting, transporting, and recycling used oil, aiming for a direct correlation with the environmental damage caused and unfulfilled obligations.
Significantly, the draft Guidelines not only provide for the imposition of Environmental Compensation but also penalties under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for violations of the Act and its rules, and additional charges to be levied by regulators and Pollution Control Boards/Committees for failure to deposit applicable Environmental Compensation and penalties.
The CPCB has published a detailed SOP12 and a comprehensive checklist for the Utilisation of Spent HCl (generated during scrubbing of gas liberated while chlorinating phenol) in the manufacturing of Para Amino Phenol. This new directive aims to regulate and enhance the safety of hazardous waste utilisation practices.
Key provisions of the SOP and checklist:
Authorisation process: The SOP provides a clear process for State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) and Pollution Control Committees (PCC) to follow when granting authorisations for hazardous waste utilisation.
Compliance verification: SPCBs and PCCs are now mandated to verify the compliance of authorised units with the SOP and checklist quarterly for an initial period of one year, followed by annual random checks thereafter.
Conditions for recovery and utilisation of HCl: The SOP lays down stringent conditions for authorised units engaged in the recovery and commercial utilisation of HCl liberated during phenol chlorination. These conditions include explicit restraints on the handling and containment of HCl, mandatory installation of alkali scrubbing systems for HCl storage tanks and reactors, and adoption of prescribed methods for the treatment and disposal of wastewater and emissions generated during the process.
Liability for environmental damage: The SOP emphasises immediate response measures, environmental site assessment, and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater in cases of environmental damage (e.g., accidental spillage) from improper hazardous waste handling. This is to be carried out as per CPCB’s existing Guidelines on Implementing Liabilities for Environmental Damages due to Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes and Penalty.
Emission standards and facilities: The SOP specifies stringent standards for emissions, including fugitive emissions, and provides a comprehensive checklist of minimal requisite facilities that industries/units must install for safe and compliant operations.
The publication of this SOP and checklist is a significant step by the CPCB towards stricter environmental control and accountability in the utilisation of hazardous wastes. Industries involved in similar chemical processes, especially those generating or utilising spent HCl, must review and adhere to these new guidelines to ensure compliance and avoid environmental liabilities.
[1] Vanashakti v Union of India and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 1394 of 2023
[2] (2023) 6 SCC 615
[3] Common Cause v Union of India and Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 499
[4] Alembic Pharmaceuticals v Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157
[5] M.C. Mehta v Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 13381 of 1984
[6] In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands, T.N. Godavarman v Union of India and Ors., I.A. Nos. 12465 and 98194 of 2019, with I.A. Nos. 12781 and 127874 of 2020 with I.A. Nos. 44062, 66986 and 74569 of 2025 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995
[7] Wildlife Society of Orissa v State of Odisha and Ors., O.A. No. 76/2023/EZ
[8] W.P. (C) No. 1164/2023
[9] https://www.dpcc.delhigovt.nic.in/uploads/news/43c7df9db152a17320f790f043b65124.pdf
[10] https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?id=TmV3c0ZpbGVzLzExNF8xNzQ3Mzg5NDkxX21lZGlhcGhvdG85NzA3LnBkZg==
[11] https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?id=TmV3c0ZpbGVzLzExNV8xNzQ3ODkxNDI4X21lZGlhcGhvdG8xNjMwNy5wZGY=
[12] https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/118_SOP.pdf
If you require any further information about the material contained in this newsletter, please get in touch with your Trilegal relationship partner or send an email to alerts@trilegal.com. The contents of this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only and are not in the nature of a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein.
If you would like to receive content directly in your inbox from our knowledge repository, please complete this subscription form. This service is reserved for clients and eligible contacts.
Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Trilegal is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.trilegal.com, you acknowledge that:
We prioritize your privacy. Before proceeding, we encourage you to read our privacy policy, which outlines the below, and terms of use to understand how we handle your data:
For more information, please read our terms of use and our privacy policy.
