Power to give directions

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 29 Mar 2019 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2019) 15 SCC 401

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Environmental clearance for the Goa Mopa airport was set aside because the EIA/EC process under Environment (Protection) Act s.3 and related EIA Notification duties was not a reasoned, full-disclosure exercise. Public participation and the duty to give reasons are part of environmental rule of law under Articles 21 and 48A. Use Judgement order-10.pdf (2019-03-29), not same-date order-9 ROP.

   On this section: Power to give directions sits with the duty to have a lawful EC; a defective EC cannot be saved by later administrative directions.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs V.B.R. Menon

   Supreme Court of India 14 Mar 2023 Persuasive Authority For Other High Courts And Tribunals Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   While the National Green Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction and power to direct the Central Pollution Control Board to exercise its statutory authority under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 for environmental protection purposes, the requirement to obtain Consent To Establish and Consent To Operate for petroleum retail outlets is neither necessary nor reasonable when comprehensive guidelines issued by the CPCB addressing all environmental safeguards are scrupulously adhered to and enforced. The Court may modify NGT's direction when implementation would impose disproportionate burdens without corresponding environmental benefit, substituting guidance ensuring strict adherence to sectoral guidelines with enforcement against breaches through established legal mechanisms.

   On this section: Central Government or delegate empowered to issue directions for achieving objects of the Act; Section 5A makes such directions appealable to NGT

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Vanashakti vs Union Of India

   Supreme Court of India 29 Jul 2026 Binding (Supreme Court) 2026 INSC 761

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The prior environmental clearance regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory and gives expression to the precautionary principle. While breach of this regime attracts civil penalties under Section 15 of the 1986 Act and by necessary implication leads to restoration of status quo ante including closure, demolition, remediation and recovery of costs, the Central Government possesses power under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to issue a narrowly tailored, time-bound, delegated legislation carving an exception to the prior EC requirement in appropriate cases where a supervening public interest justifies controlled continuance subject to stringent appraisal, damage assessment, remediation, compensatory liability and future compliance. Such an exception must satisfy the constitutional tests of reasonable classification under Article 14 and proportionality under Article 21. However, an administrative instruction cannot supplant the 2006 Notification or create a perpetual amnesty regime applicable to all permissible projects without intelligible differentia bearing rational nexus to supervening public interest. The 2017 Notification is valid as such a narrowly tailored exception, but the 2021 Office Memorandum is invalid as it fails the proportionality test by being unlimited in time and class.

   On this section: Vests power to issue binding directions for closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.