Yamuna floodplains: Supreme Court sets aside NGT order against Art of Living; directs DDA to refund ₹5 crore
The Supreme Court set aside a 2017 National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that had held an event organiser liable for damage to the Yamuna floodplains caused by a three-day cultural festival held there in March 2016
The NGT had earlier permitted the event to proceed on the floodplain on condition that ₹5 crore be deposited as interim environmental compensation, which was later directed to be used for restoration work
The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the entire ₹5 crore deposited amount, holding that absolute liability could not be fixed without establishing a direct causal link between the specific activity and the damage found
The Court directed that rehabilitation and restoration work on the Yamuna floodplain continue as previously ordered, independent of the liability question
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Appeals to the Supreme Court
The NGT was established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as a specialised body to handle disputes involving substantial questions relating to the environment, including enforcement of legal rights relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property. Orders of the NGT are not final within the tribunal system — Section 22 of the Act creates a direct statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court, distinguishing this route from the normal High Court appellate hierarchy.
Key Details
- Section 22, NGT Act 2010: any person aggrieved by an award, decision, or order of the NGT may appeal to the Supreme Court within 90 days (extendable on sufficient cause), on grounds specified under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- The NGT itself has original jurisdiction over "substantial questions relating to environment" under Section 14, and appellate jurisdiction over specified environmental clearances/consents under Section 16
- Despite the direct Supreme Court appeal route, the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226/227 remains available and is not ousted by the NGT Act
- The NGT applies the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle while passing orders (Section 20)
The case reached the Supreme Court precisely through this Section 22 route, which is why the apex court could directly review and overturn the NGT's 2017 finding rather than the matter going through a High Court first.
Absolute Liability Principle — M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Absolute liability is the standard Indian courts apply in cases of harm from hazardous or environmentally damaging activity — a stricter standard than ordinary tort liability, evolved because the English "strict liability" rule (Rylands v. Fletcher) allowed several defences that Indian courts found inadequate for modern hazardous activities.
Key Details
- Laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 SC, the Oleum Gas Leak case), arising from a sulphuric acid gas leak at a Delhi factory in December 1985
- Under absolute liability, an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is liable for harm resulting from an accident without any of the exceptions (act of God, third-party act, plaintiff's own fault) available under the older strict liability rule
- The quantum of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, to act as a deterrent ("deep pocket" doctrine)
- The doctrine, along with the polluter pays principle, underpins how compensation is assessed in NGT cases involving environmental damage
The Supreme Court's reasoning that liability requires establishing a direct causal connection between a specific activity and the harm caused reflects the evidentiary threshold courts apply even under the absolute liability standard — liability is not automatic merely because damage exists in an area where an activity occurred.
Yamuna Floodplain (Zone 'O') — Master Plan for Delhi
The Yamuna floodplain in Delhi is officially classified as Zone 'O' under the statutory Master Plan for Delhi, prepared by the DDA under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It is treated as environmentally sensitive because it functions as a natural flood buffer and groundwater recharge zone for the city.
Key Details
- Zone 'O' covers roughly 9,700 hectares of floodplain between Wazirabad in the north and Okhla in the south, about 165 sq km
- The Master Plan for Delhi restricts most construction and permanent activity in Zone 'O' to preserve its flood-absorption and groundwater-recharge functions
- The DDA is the statutory planning and land-owning authority for Delhi under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, responsible for the floodplain's regulation and restoration
- Large public events on the floodplain (such as the one at issue here) have repeatedly drawn NGT/judicial scrutiny over compliance with these zoning restrictions
The underlying dispute originated because the 2016 event was held directly on this ecologically sensitive Zone 'O' floodplain, making the DDA — as the land-owning and restoration authority — the body now directed to refund the compensation and to continue restoration work.
- Event and alleged damage: three-day cultural festival held on the Yamuna floodplain, March 11–13, 2016
- Interim environmental compensation deposited: ₹5 crore, as directed by the NGT before the event
- NGT order holding the organiser liable and directing use of the deposit for restoration: December 2017
- Supreme Court order setting aside the NGT finding and directing full refund of ₹5 crore: August 2026
- Statutory appeal route used: Section 22, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (appeal to Supreme Court within 90 days)
- Zone 'O' (Yamuna floodplain) extent under the Master Plan for Delhi: approximately 9,700 hectares (~165 sq km)