NGT’s Honnavar Port verdict undermines environmental rule of law

On June 10, the Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) delivered a ruling that may have long-lasting implications for the future of participatory environmental governance in India.

In dismissing two appeals challenging the environment clearance (EC) granted to Honnavar Port in coastal Karnataka, the NGT has effectively declared that a public hearing conducted in 2012 can be revived, reused, and revalidated for a project approved in 2024 — 12 years later.

This legal leap allowing a ‘recycled’ public hearing to pass for fresh community consultation raises serious constitutional, ecological, and statutory questions.

Empty hearing for revived clearance

The proposed Rs 607 crore Honnavar Port is a public-private partnership between the Karnataka Maritime Board and Honnavar Port Pvt. Ltd. The initial EC was granted in 2012 after a sparsely attended public hearing with only 10 participants, all opposing the project, including the local member of the legislative assembly. That clearance lapsed in 2024. Yet, instead of holding a new public hearing, Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted a fresh EC in December 2024 based on a Rapid Environment Impact Assessment (environmental baseline data collected for one season) and an ‘example’ cited by the project proponent: a 2017 case of the Mumbai Port Trust.

The NGT upheld this process, reasoning that since the law does not “exclude time spent in litigation”, and no fixed validity is assigned to public hearings, the 2012 consultation could legally carry forward.

But this interpretation strains the EIA Notification, 2006 and its 2021 Amendment to breaking point. Clause 7(i)(III)(i) mandates public consultation for new port projects outside notified industrial zones. The March 2021 Amendment creates a narrow exception: if more than 50 per cent of physical work is completed and the EC lapses, public hearing “may” be exempted. In the case of Honnavar, only five per cent work had commenced, falling well short of the threshold.

The core demand of the fisherfolk is that the newly conducted EIA study be made accessible to them, so they can evaluate its adequacy with respect to the environmental impact of the entire port (including road & rail) on turtle nesting, sea erosion, fisheries, and habitation impacts. In Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India (Appeal No. 39 of 2012), the NGT held that environmental studies must be open for public consultation to enable affected communities to voice concerns, thereby facilitating informed decisions by the Expert Appraisal Committee and ensuring sustainable development.

Equality in illegality is not a defence

SEIAA and the NGT justified the exemption by citing the Union Ministry on Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s 2017 exemption to the Mumbai Port Trust. But that decision was neither tested nor upheld judicially and involved expansion of an existing port by constructing two ‘offshore’ container berths. In contrast, Honnavar Port involves new land acquisition and an entirely fresh EC. The factual dissimilarity and lack of legal scrutiny make this precedent irrelevant.

The NGT’s approach effectively amounts to saying: “because someone else got away with it, so can you.” This runs in contradiction to the principle of legality: equality in illegality is no defence.

Erasure of people and turtles from the EIA record

The affected fishing village of Kasarkod with 3,736 families, according to the Government of Karnataka’s 2016 fisheries census, was completely excluded from the EIA report. No mention is made of their homes, their dependence on the Sharavathi river estuary, or their traditional fishing grounds now under threat from the port and its proposed road and rail corridor running 50 metres from the high tide line. The 2016 Marine Fisheries Census, which lists Kasarkod as a fishing-dependent village, is also conveniently omitted.

Equally egregious is the EIA’s handling of biodiversity. The National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM)’s 2021 survey relied on by NGT covered only the 45-hectare port area and was conducted in August, well outside the Olive Ridley Turtle nesting season. This is as scientifically absurd as visiting Nagarhole Tiger Reserve on a few safaris and concluding that no tigers exist because none were spotted.

In fact, in the past four years of environmental litigation, the official status of Olive Ridley nesting in the area has evolved from ‘extinct’ to ‘occasional’ to ‘sporadic’. This is a crucial conservation update, particularly as the Olive Ridley is the only sea turtle species known to nest on the Karnataka coast.

A democracy without participation

The fishing community submitted objections to the exemption in December 2024. A Gram Sabha held in January 2025 had over 350 people opposing the project. Yet, the NGT dismissed this on the grounds that the opposition came after the EC was issued ignoring the fact that no meaningful public hearing was ever held before in the first place.

This undermines the very idea of participatory environmental governance. Public consultation is not a procedural formality. It is a legal right, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, and an essential safeguard under the Precautionary Principle.

As per India’s commitment to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, India is bound by Principle 10, which affirms that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens. Public access to information, effective participation in decision-making, and access to judicial and administrative proceedings are essential components of environmental justice. This principle underscores that public participation is not a procedural formality, but a foundational pillar of sound and democratic environmental governance.

Even under the Paris Agreement 2015, a legally binding ‘International treaty’ which India is a party to keeps “public participation and public access to information” (Article 12) and rights of indigenous people and local communities at its centre.

The NGT’s refusal to review the exclusion of an entire fishing community from the EIA, the lack of rehabilitation measures, and the unscientific mitigation plan for turtle nesting further reflects a retreat from its own jurisprudence and in contradiction to India’s commitment to the international community on environmental governance. It has failed to apply the test of proportionally weighing ecological and social costs against the economic ambitions of a private developer.

Rule of Law or Rule by Loophole?

The NGT’s ruling in the Honnavar Port case signals a dangerous erosion of environmental law. It not only distorts the intent of the EIA Notification but also creates a loophole large enough for future developers to exploit, just wait out the litigation and avoid a fresh public hearing altogether.

The decision undermines the legitimacy of public participation, weakens conservation protections, and sacrifices the rights of coastal communities at the altar of ‘sustainable development’. All of which are subject to protection under the parent law.

Environmental democracy cannot be reduced to a relic from 2012. The law must evolve and so must the institutions entrusted to uphold it.

In short, the judgment reads more like an ill perceived ‘dispute resolution’ between ‘development’ versus ‘environment’ and, fails the cause of environment justice.

Sreeja Chakraborty is an environmental lawyer in Bengaluru

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth