Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) vs Union of India 2025 INSC 1112 -EIA Notification
EIA notification - The constitutional validity of Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29 January 2025 - Referred to Vanashakti v.Union of India - while upholding the 2025 Notification, this Court set aside Note 1 in Column 5 of Item 8(a), holding that the exclusion of projects such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions was inconsistent with the object and scheme of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. With respect to the OM dated 30.01.2025, it was further held that the 2025 Notification would apply to the State of Kerala as well- The 2025 Notification, excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a), presently holds the field. (Para 23-25)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
Case Name:Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1112
Coram (Judges)
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date
- 12 September 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- One Earth One Life v. MoEFKerala High Court, WP (C) No. 3097 of 2016, judgment dated 06.03.2024
- In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary(2011) 1 SCC 744
- Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari(2017) 11 SCC 734
- East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of CustomsAIR 1962 SC 1893
- Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya PradeshAIR 1955 SC 781
- B.N. Tiwari v. Union of IndiaAIR 1965 SC 1430
- Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati(2020) 17 SCC 157
- Mantri Techzone v. Forward Foundation(2019) 18 SCC 494
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha(2022) 13 SCC 401
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. V.B.R. Menon(2023) 7 SCC 368
- Workmen of American Express v. Management(1985) 4 SCC 71
- SEBI v. Ajay Agarwal(2010) 3 SC 765
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others(1996) 5 SCC 647
- Jagannath v. Union of India and Others(1997) 2 SCC 87
- Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others(2000) 2 SCC 599
- Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others(2006) 3 SCC 549
- Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga and Others(2020) 15 SCC 784
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469)
- In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands(recent judgment, coordinate bench, CJI B.R. Gavai party)
Statutes / Laws Referred
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
- Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
- Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2014
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Q&A
1. What was the main issue before the Supreme Court in these appeals?
The main issue was whether the “General Conditions” under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 apply to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects) of the Schedule, and if such projects near sensitive areas must be appraised as Category A projects at the Central level.
2. Who were the appellants and respondents in the case?
The appellants were Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI), Godrej Properties Ltd., and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd. The respondents included the Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), and others.
3. What order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was challenged in these appeals?
The NGT’s order dated 09.08.2024, which directed that all building and construction projects within 5 km of protected areas, critically/severely polluted areas, eco-sensitive areas, or inter-state boundaries be treated as Category A projects and appraised at the Central level, was challenged.
4. What are “General Conditions” under the EIA 2006 Notification?
General Conditions are provisions that, if applicable, require certain Category B projects to be treated as Category A if they are located within a specified distance of protected areas, critically polluted areas, eco-sensitive zones, or inter-state/international boundaries.
5. Did the EIA 2006 Notification originally apply General Conditions to Items 8(a) and 8(b)?
No. The Schedule to the EIA 2006 Notification did not provide for the applicability of General Conditions to Items 8(a) and 8(b). Column 5, which lists conditions, was left blank for these items.
6. What was the significance of the 2014 Notification and the Kerala High Court’s decision?
The 2014 Notification expressly clarified that General Conditions do not apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b). The Kerala High Court quashed this notification on procedural grounds, not on the substantive legal position.
7. What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the applicability of General Conditions to Items 8(a) and 8(b)?
The Supreme Court held that General Conditions were never applicable to Items 8(a) and 8(b) under the EIA 2006 Notification, and wherever the legislature intended their application, it was expressly stated in the Schedule.
8. What was the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on the NGT’s order?
The Supreme Court found that the NGT had misinterpreted the EIA 2006 Notification and set aside the NGT’s order, holding that the General Conditions do not apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b).
9. What is the role of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) after this judgment?
The SEIAA, being a statutory expert body constituted by the Central Government, is authorized to appraise and grant environmental clearances for projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b).
10. What did the Supreme Court say about the principle of sustainable development?
The Court reiterated that while environmental protection is essential, development must also be allowed, and a balance must be struck through the principle of sustainable development.
11. What was the Court’s view on the exclusion of certain buildings (industrial sheds, schools, colleges, hostels) from EIA requirements?
The Court held that the exclusion of such buildings from EIA requirements (as per Note 1 to Entry 8(a) in the 2025 Notification) was arbitrary and quashed that exclusion.
12. What is the current legal position after this judgment regarding environmental clearance for building and construction projects?
Building and construction projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b) are to be appraised by SEIAA, and General Conditions do not apply to them. The 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the related Office Memorandum are upheld.
13. Which statutes and notifications were primarily discussed in the judgment?
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; EIA Notification 2006; EIA Notification 2014; and the 2025 Notification.
14. What was the final order of the Supreme Court in these appeals?
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, holding that the issues were already adjudicated in a related writ petition, and upheld the 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the related Office Memorandum.
