Limitation period to challenge environmental clearance commences from earliest public disclosure date

In Talli Gram Panchayat v Union of India & Ors, 2025 INSC 1331, the Supreme Court approved the prevailing view that the period of limitation to challenge a decision pertaining to the grant of an Environmental Clearance (“EC”) before the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) starts from the first date when the grant of EC became information available in the public domain. The matter emanated from a challenge to the grant of an EC issued to a limestone mining project in Gujarat, which the NGT dismissed as time-barred.

Under Section 16(h) of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“Act”), any person aggrieved by the grant of an EC may prefer an appeal against such order within a period of thirty days from the date on which the decision is communicated to him. The NGT may condone a further delay of up to sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for such delay.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was therefore the meaning of the term “communicated” in the context of the grant of an EC, that is, whether the limitation period started from the date on which the EC was granted. The appellant contended that the period of limitation should begin only when it received information regarding the grant of the EC in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application.

The Court held that environmental issues are inherently matters of public importance and so the term “communication” must be interpreted liberally as it is intended to be in rem and not in personam.

The Court examined the disclosure obligations under the Environment Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Notification, 2006, which require multiple authorities and entities to publicise the grant of an EC and emphasised that the duty to communicate the grant of an EC falls on multiple authorities and entities—(i) the MoEFCC, (ii) the project proponent, and (iii) Pollution Control Boards—each obligated to ensure that the grant of an EC is effectively disseminated and accessible to the public.

Since multiple authorities or duty bearers have the obligation to communicate the fact of the grant of an EC to the public, it becomes crucial to determine the specific date on which such communication can be said to be complete to the “person aggrieved” for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation 

The Court held that when an obligation to communicate the decision vests in multiple authorities, it is appropriate to infer that the communication is complete when the ‘person aggrieved’ receives information from the earliest of the communications.

The Court approved the prevailing view expressed by the NGT in Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India [2013(1) All India NGT Reporter 1] and Medha Patkar & Ors. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, UOI and Ors. [2013 SCC Online NGT] that the period of limitation commences from the earliest of the dates on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers. The Court clarified that the provisions of clause 10 of the EIA Notification 2006 do not require the project proponent to publish the EC granted to it in its entirety in newspapers and publishing the factum of grant of the EC along with the substance of the conditions and safeguards would be sufficient compliance with the mandate of the EIA Notification 2006.

In the facts, the Court upheld NGT’s finding that the EC granted to the project proponent was uploaded on the website of the MoEFCC on the same day on which it was granted. Therefore, the period of limitation started from that date as the EC was placed in the public domain, made accessible and downloadable to all members of the public, and not from the date when the appellant later obtained the specific information by way of an RTI application.

The Court reiterated that the period of limitation commences from the first date on which the decision of the grant of an EC is made available in the public domain by multiple authorities, thus balancing two competing objectives: administrative transparency and preventing uncertainty for a project proponent who may face a belated challenge to the decision of the grant of an EC from any member of the public.

For a potential challenge to a decision pertaining to the grant of an EC, the judgment underscores the importance of vigilance and timely monitoring of the decision pertaining to the grant of an EC across official platforms of multiple authorities. For the multiple authorities and project proponent involved, it reaffirms their statutory duty to ensure effective and accessible communication to the public.

About the authors: Vanita Bhargava is a Partner, Nandita Chauhan is a Principal Associate and Tijil Thakur is an Associate at Khaitan & Co.

Views expressed are personal.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.