Subscribe
The Supreme Court (SC), on July 23, 2026, allowed the Trapezium Zone Authority to process more than 400 applications for the establishment, expansion, or relocation of mostly small or medium scale industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
In every such meeting, an expert representative of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and an expert representative of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) must be invited. No meeting should take place unless both the subject experts are present. Similarly, if one of the two experts objects to the nature of an industry — namely, classifying it as not a ‘non-polluting industry ’— that application should not be accepted without leave of the court, the order said.
In those cases where both the experts (NEERI and CEC) and the TTZ Authority deliver a unanimous opinion, such applications should be processed and taken to their logical conclusion strictly in accordance with the law, without any reference to the court. However, all such decisions must be uploaded on the CEC website, enabling public-spirited persons to submit their objections-cum-suggestions, if any. Those objections-cum-suggestions will be considered by the TTZ Authority in consultation with the experts from NEERI and CEC.
The apex court emphasised that the TTZ Authority is obligated to furnish complete material regarding every industry, including the physical verification reports, to the subject experts nominated by CEC and NEERI well in advance of the meeting.
Furthermore, every final decision should be conveyed in advance to the Amicus Curiae. If she opines that such a decision warrants judicial review by the court, then an appropriate application for that purpose must be moved.
The order remains operative until the finalisation of the vision document and preparation of the cumulative impact assessment study or the finalisation of the list of non polluting industries, the order said.
Taj Trapezium Zone Authority had sought recall / modification of paragraph 27 of the SC order from October 14, 2024 (WP(C) 13381/1984).
Paragraph 27 of the 2024 order stated that until further orders are passed by the SC, TTZ Authority shall not permit the setting up of new industries or the expansion of existing industries without leave of the court.
The TTZ Authority sought recall of the order on the ground that 410 applications for the establishment, expansion, or relocation of mostly small or medium-scale industries were pending before it.
Due to the blanket order passed by the SC, the TTZ Authority is unable to process or make any decision regarding the pending applications.
The SC, on July 23, 2026 also heard two applications for permission to fell trees. The first application was moved by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking its impleadment and permission to fell 5,812 trees for the rectification of eight MoRTH-identified blackspots on the Agra-Bharatpur-Mahua section of NH-21 in Bharatpur. The second application was moved by the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department seeking permission to cut and remove 188 trees falling within the right of way of the NH-3 Digner Canal Patri-Gutila-Gangraua Road situated within the TTZ.
In both the cases, the SC directed that the applications be forwarded to the CEC for its expert opinion.
SC on July 23, 2026 set aside the 2016 judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court on forest fires and asked the HC to revisit the issues arising for determination in light of subsequent developments. The HC has been asked to "issue such revised directions as may be considered necessary in the changed circumstances" and monitor the implementation of such measures, as may be directed, in accordance with law.
SC noted that the High Court of Uttarakhand issued an extensive series of directions more than a decade ago. However, owing to the interim stay granted by SC in 2017, "the implementation and efficacy of those directions could not be meaningfully assessed".
It appears to us that many of the directions contained in the impugned judgment have since been substantially implemented and complied with by Uttarakhand as well as the Union of India, said the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
However, the incidents of forest fire continue to recur every year. Allegations have also been made regarding mismanagement, diversion, and misuse of funds, as well as a lack of commitment on the part of the concerned authorities. In these circumstances, the SC was of the view that the directions issued by the High Court, which have remained under stay for nearly a decade, ought to be revisited.
Considerable changes have taken place on the ground during this period. Further, with advancements in technology and the modernisation of forest fire detection and management systems, it is open to debate whether greater emphasis ought to be placed on increasing manpower, as directed by the High Court, or on the adoption of more effective scientific and technological solutions. Since forest fires constitute a recurring and continuing environmental challenge, the matter also requires periodic monitoring.
The jurisdictional High Court is better placed to undertake such monitoring and to issue such periodic directions as may be warranted in light of changing circumstances and local requirements, the SC said.
The SC asked Rajiv Datta, Senior Counsel, to assist the High Court as Amicus Curiae, preferably through online appearances, if the High Court required it.
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (MAHAGENCO) was given the go-ahead by SC July 24, 2026 for mining coal at Gare Palma, Sector-II in Raigarh district, Chhattisgarh.
MAHAGENCO had challenged the NGT order of January 15, 2024 that quashed the environmental clearance given to the industry on July 11, 2022 and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to reexamine the matter from the stage of “conducting public consultation afresh”.
The SC stated that the expression "afresh" connotes that it was obligatory upon the authorities to conduct afresh public consultation. Since such an exercise has not been carried out, the contrary view taken by the NGT in the judgment does not seem to be sustainable.
Since substantial compliance has already taken place, the SC said that Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited is entitled to continue with the mining activity. To that end, "it is clarified that there shall not be any impediment to the company merely because the requisite fresh public consultation has not been undertaken so far".
At the same time, we have no doubt that “afresh public consultation” ought to have been undertaken before the grant of EC.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The matter is remitted to the NGT, Central Zone, Bhopal to monitor that “afresh public consultation” is carried out and that an appropriate order is passed thereafter. If there are other issues raised by both sides, those may also be examined on merits by the NGT, the SC order said.
The matter would next be taken up by NGT on August 3, 2026 and the apex court asked the NGT to decide the matter expeditiously.
