In a landmark decision that has significant implications for urban development, environmental law, and the jurisprudence of legislative powers, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on January 11, 2024, involving the State of Himachal Pradesh. The case centered around the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act of 1977 and its application in the Shimla Planning Area, bringing to the forefront complex issues of urban planning, environmental sustainability, and the scope of judicial intervention in legislative matters.
The genesis of the case can be traced back to the establishment of the Shimla Planning Area under the 1977 Act, which set the stage for subsequent development plans in the region. These plans and notifications, however, became a subject of legal scrutiny by the NGT, particularly keeping in view the environmental concerns. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had previously issued a judgment on November 16, 2017 banning all construction activities in the green and core areas and also within 3 meters of national highways. It also restricted the number of stories to two-and-a-half in other areas where construction was permitted to up to 4 to 5 stories. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has now overturned this Judgment.
(to read the critique of the 2017 NGT Judgment please refer to https://himachalwatcher.com/2019/07/31/the-curse-of-ngt-judgment-undoing-of-urban-planning/)
The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered on January 11, 2024, involved several key determinations. The Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-49 of 2019, enabling the State of Himachal Pradesh to proceed with its development plan, dated June 20, 2023. The NGT’s orders, which had imposed restrictions on the implementation of the TCP Act and other Guidelines that it issued in its 2017 Judgment, were quashed on grounds of judicial overreach and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing development with environmental protection, and it provided avenues for citizens to raise environmental concerns through proper legal remedies by approaching the High Court.
This case is notable not only for its implications on the development of Shimla but also for the crucial legal principles it invoked. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the NGT’s orders was grounded in fundamental doctrines such as the separation of powers among the judiciary, legislature, and executive, and the limitations of judicial review. The judgment thus serves as a vital reference point for understanding the interplay between environmental concerns, urban development policies, and the respective powers of judicial and legislative bodies in India.
How NGT Went Beyond Its Jurisdiction and violated Separation of powers Doctrine:
The Supreme Court’s judgement in this case highlights the domain and power of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and how the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction. The NGT is primarily a specialized judicial body with the mandate to handle environmental cases. It deals with cases related to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. Its jurisdiction typically includes enforcing legal rights related to the environment, giving relief and compensation for damages, and handling cases of substantial environmental impact.
- Judicial Overreach and Separation of Powers: The Supreme Court held that it’s not within the judicial domain to legislate or to issue directions to the Legislature or its delegates regarding law enactment. This is based on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers among the Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive.
- Issuing Directions on Legislative Matters: The NGT issued directives to the authorities responsible for enacting the Shimla development plan, directing them to do so in a specific manner. This approach was seen as an overreach of its jurisdiction.
- Usurping Legislative Functions: The NGT’s actions were interpreted as attempting to assume legislative functions, which is beyond the scope of judicial review and power. The court emphasized that legislative power is exclusively vested in the Parliament and State Legislatures, and not in the judiciary or judicial bodies like the NGT.
- Interfering with Delegated Legislation: The Supreme Court observed that the NGT, by imposing conditions on the exercise of powers by the State Government and the Director under the TCP Act, was infringing upon the field of delegated legislation, which is a prerogative of the legislative body.
The Supreme Court’s judgment on the development plan for Shimla has several implications:
Validity of the Development Plan: The Supreme Court acknowledged the statutory nature of the development Plans (DP), as it referred to a precedent that was set in a case (Mantri Techzone Private Limited) and upheld the passing of the Shimla DP. This implies that the development plan as published is legally valid, has a statutory force and can be implemented.
Non-interference with Statutory Plans: The judgment indicates that the NGT’s actions, which effectively revised buffer zones in another case, were beyond its jurisdiction as they amounted to amending a statutory plan. The case set a precedent that statutory plans, once formulated, should not be altered by judicial bodies like the NGT unless there is a legal basis to question their constitutionality or legality.
Implications for Urban Development: For Shimla, this means the development plan as set out can proceed. This plan is expected to lead to infrastructural development and urban improvements in Shimla, potentially enhancing living conditions and economic growth.
Environmental Considerations: While the Supreme Court allowed the development plan to proceed, it also emphasized the importance of balancing development with environmental protection. This suggests that while development activities will continue, they should adhere to environmental norms and considerations.
Legal Recourse for Grievances: The judgment allows citizens to raise challenges to specific provisions of the development plan, particularly concerning environmental or ecological concerns. This provides a legal pathway for the people of Shimla to address any issues they might have with the development activities, ensuring their voices can be heard in matters affecting their city.
Exclusion of Compensation for the ‘Green Belt’ Area: The judgment did not address the issue of compensation for plot holders in the ‘Green Belt’ area. This means that affected parties will have to seek other legal remedies, leaving an area of uncertainty for those impacted by this aspect of the development plan.
Encouragement of Lawful Development: The judgment’s emphasis on following the legal framework and due processes in urban planning underscores the importance of lawful development practices, which could lead to more transparent and responsible governance in Shimla.
Reactions and Future Outlook
The judgment has been met with mixed reactions. Environmentalists emphasize the need for vigilant monitoring of the development plan’s implementation to ensure environmental sustainability. Meanwhile, urban planners and state officials have welcomed the decision, viewing it as a green light for much-needed infrastructure and development in Shimla. In any case as far as the Rule of Law is concerned there was never a doubt that NGT judgment was bad in law
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent in Indian jurisprudence, highlighting the principle of Separation of Powers. It reiterates the importance of adhering to the constitutional framework and the specific roles of various governmental branches in policy and lawmaking. For Shimla, this decision opens a new chapter, one where development and ecological considerations are expected to go hand in hand. Yet, amid this legal landmark, the words of the venerable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar resonate with timeless relevance, reminding us of a profound truth: the spirit of the law lies in its execution. Ambedkar, with his insightful foresight, once remarked:
“However good the Laws may be, if those who are implementing them are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad the Laws may be, if those implementing them are good, they will prove to be good”
(See https://himachalwatcher.com/2019/07/31/the-curse-of-ngt-judgment-undoing-of-urban-planning/)
—————————————————
Deven Khanna,
Advocate,
Direct (M): + 91 – 7018469792
Office: +91 – 0177 – 2674760
LawUmbrella 