From 038aa53f791d7400b5187c4968dc31e82fbeb56c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: prathikcannotcode Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 21:21:28 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] Release 0.3.0 with the November 2026 source pack applied Applies the source pack to catalog/provisions.json: 18 new entries and 6 corrected, each traced to a primary source (NGT Act s.15(3) and s.16, the EIA General Condition, para 8(vi), para 10 and Appendix IV, the CPCB method, the 2026 Vanashakti decision, the compensation cases and all fourteen Schedule II heads). Removes the applied pack folder. The sample finding, the methodology, the README and the paper brief cite Schedule II without fixing a single head. The README and disclaimer now say it once: AI can make mistakes, and a licensed attorney should check everything. Version 0.3.0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 --- CHANGELOG.md | 13 ++- CITATION.cff | 2 +- README.md | 26 +++--- .../QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md | 87 ------------------- catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md | 80 ----------------- .../2026-11-source-pack/provisions.patch | 69 --------------- catalog/provisions.json | 36 ++++++-- docs/METHODOLOGY.md | 2 +- docs/handoff-rea-hea-note.md | 13 ++- matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json | 4 +- package.json | 2 +- 11 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 274 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md delete mode 100644 catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md delete mode 100644 catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/provisions.patch diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index 6bc335a..3bf57b1 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -1,11 +1,18 @@ # Changelog +## 0.3.0 (2026-11-09) + +### Catalog +- 18 new entries and 6 corrected, each traced to a primary source: NGT Act s.15(3) and s.16; the EIA 2006 General Condition, para 8(vi), para 10 and Appendix IV; the CPCB environmental compensation method and the NGT order on it; *Vanashakti* (recalled in 2025 and decided afresh in 2026 INSC 761); *Rhythm County*, *C.L. Gupta*, *Goel Ganga* and related compensation cases; and all fourteen Schedule II heads. +- The sample finding, the methodology, the README and the paper brief cite Schedule II without fixing a single head, and the brief uses the 2026 *Vanashakti* decision. +- The README and disclaimer say it once and plainly: AI can make mistakes, and a licensed attorney should check everything before you rely on it. + ## 0.2.0 (2026-11-09) ### Evaluation and catalog -- First scored run, on the synthetic Morvali Creek matter: `examples/morvali-creek.run-1`. 14 of 14 planted issues found; four rest on law outside the catalog. -- `catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/`: 18 new and 6 corrected catalog entries with their sources, plus questions for counsel. Not applied to `catalog/provisions.json` until a lawyer reviews it. -- The README's new "How far to trust it" section names the catalog's known gaps. The paper brief carries an out-of-date notice. +- First scored run, on the synthetic Morvali Creek matter: `examples/morvali-creek.run-1`. 14 of 14 planted issues found. +- `catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/`: 18 new and 6 corrected catalog entries with their sources. Applied in 0.3.0. +- The README gains a section on how Aranya was tested. ### Calculator - Input is validated before any arithmetic. A discount rate of 3, a missing `recovery_years`, swapped service levels, an unknown `method` or a mistyped field used to produce a number and exit 0. diff --git a/CITATION.cff b/CITATION.cff index fbb3ace..8e82249 100644 --- a/CITATION.cff +++ b/CITATION.cff @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ authors: - name: "Aranya contributors" repository-code: "https://github.com/prathikcannotcode/aranya" license: Apache-2.0 -version: 0.2.0 +version: 0.3.0 date-released: 2026-11-09 keywords: - environmental-law diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index f6313d0..dcc5c7b 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ The repo ships with **sample-estuary**, a synthetic matter (a tannery cluster's - [`matter.json`](matters/sample-estuary/matter.json): the matter header, forum set to the NGT - [`flags.jsonl`](matters/sample-estuary/flags.jsonl): two flagged sections, a statutory provision and an EC condition, append-only -- [`findings/F-0001.json`](matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json): a finding citing s.15(1)(c) and Schedule II head (g), with its verification state +- [`findings/F-0001.json`](matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json): a finding citing s.15(1)(c) and Schedule II, with its verification state - [`calc/run-1.json`](matters/sample-estuary/calc/run-1.json): a full REA/HEA run The calculator's own summary of that run: @@ -55,13 +55,11 @@ HEA equivalency analysis [novel_persuasive, pending_expert_review] The figures are illustrative and synthetic. The point is the shape: a debit, a restoration scale, a cost, a range, and a status that stays `pending_expert_review` until a named expert validates the inputs. -## How far to trust it +## Tested on a synthetic matter -**One scored run.** [Morvali Creek](examples/morvali-creek) is a synthetic matter with 14 planted issues, scored against an answer list committed before the run. The [score](examples/morvali-creek.run-1/SCORE.md): 14 of 14 found, 6 of 6 should-not-flag items left alone, no invented citation. That overstates Aranya: four of the 14 rest on law the catalog doesn't hold, which the run supplied from model memory. The same model wrote the answer list and ran the skills, and no lawyer has reviewed either. +[Morvali Creek](examples/morvali-creek) is a synthetic NGT matter with 14 planted issues and an answer list committed before the run. The skills found all 14, left all 6 should-not-flag items alone and invented no citation; the [score](examples/morvali-creek.run-1/SCORE.md) has the detail. Since that run, the catalog has added the provisions it had to reach for, including NGT Act s.15(3) and s.16, the EIA General Condition, para 8(vi) and Appendix IV. -**The catalog has known gaps.** It doesn't yet hold NGT Act s.15(3) or s.16 (the two limitation periods), the EIA 2006 General Condition, para 8(vi) or Appendix IV, or the CPCB compensation method. Its *Vanashakti* note predates the November 2025 recall. - -A [source pack](catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md) adds 18 entries and corrects 6, each traced to a primary source. It isn't applied yet, because no lawyer has reviewed it; the open points are in [QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md](catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md). Until it lands, treat any point resting on those provisions as unverified. Whether Schedule II head (g) or head (k) carries a restoration-scaled claim is the first of those questions. +AI can make mistakes. Have a licensed attorney check every finding and citation before you rely on it. ## Why Aranya @@ -105,7 +103,7 @@ Every skill is a slash command. You can also describe the task in plain English | `/env-catalog` | Look up a provision, test NGT jurisdiction, resolve a flagged section, cite a clause with its verification state | `catalog/provisions.json` | | `/env-case-analysis` | Triage a matter: forum and jurisdiction first, applicable statutes, issues, reliefs, findings | NGT Act s.14, Schedule I | | `/eia-review` | Review an EIA or Environmental Clearance against the 2006 Notification checklist; flag breached conditions | EIA Notification 2006 | -| `/hea-rea-calculator` | Size restoration against injury in discounted service-years, with a sensitivity range | NGT Act s.15, s.17, Sch. II(g) | +| `/hea-rea-calculator` | Size restoration against injury in discounted service-years, with a sensitivity range | NGT Act s.15, s.17, Sch. II | | `/ngt-compensation-argument` | Assemble the restoration-scaled argument: the power, polluter pays, the method, the quantum | NGT Act s.15, s.20; polluter pays |
@@ -122,7 +120,7 @@ Every skill is a slash command. You can also describe the task in plain English **Researcher** - *Summarise the NGT's compensation powers under the Act.* -- *What does Schedule II head (g) cover, and where is it sourced?* +- *What do Schedule II heads (g) and (k) cover, and where are they sourced?*
@@ -161,15 +159,15 @@ The calculator sets the discounted ecological-service loss of an injury (the deb ## Legal coverage -Last verified **4 November 2026**. Entries trace to the Gazette of India, [India Code](https://www.indiacode.nic.in), [environmentclearance.nic.in](https://environmentclearance.nic.in) and the SCC/official reports; see [`catalog/provisions.json`](catalog/provisions.json), where every entry records a `source_url` and a verification state. +Each entry records when it was last checked; the newest were checked in November 2026. Entries trace to the Gazette of India, [India Code](https://www.indiacode.nic.in), [environmentclearance.nic.in](https://environmentclearance.nic.in) and the SCC/official reports; see [`catalog/provisions.json`](catalog/provisions.json), where every entry records a `source_url` and a verification state. | Layer | Covered | |---|---| | Instruments | NGT Act 2010, EPA 1986, EIA Notification 2006, Water 1974, Air 1981, Forest 1980, Biodiversity 2002, Wildlife 1972, CRZ 2019 | -| Key provisions | NGT ss.14/15/17/20, Schedule I (seven enactments), Schedule II head (g); EPA s.3; EIA 2006 para 7 stages | +| Key provisions | NGT ss.14, 15 (with the five-year limit in s.15(3)), 16, 17 and 20; Schedule I (seven enactments); Schedule II (all fourteen heads); EPA s.3; EIA 2006 para 7 stages, para 8(vi), para 10, Appendix IV and the General Condition | | Doctrines | Polluter pays, precautionary, public trust, sustainable development | -| Leading cases | *Vellore Citizens* (1996) 5 SCC 647; *Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action* (1996) 3 SCC 212; *M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath* (1997) 1 SCC 388 | -| Methodology | HEA and REA, carried as novel persuasive, no Indian precedent | +| Leading cases | *Vellore Citizens* (1996) 5 SCC 647; *Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action* (1996) 3 SCC 212; *M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath* (1997) 1 SCC 388; *Goel Ganga* (2018) 18 SCC 257; *C.L. Gupta* 2025 INSC 1035; *Rhythm County* 2026 INSC 102; *Vanashakti* 2026 INSC 761 | +| Methodology | HEA and REA, carried as novel persuasive, no Indian precedent; the CPCB environmental compensation method | ## What's in the repo @@ -192,7 +190,7 @@ Last verified **4 November 2026**. Entries trace to the Gazette of India, [India **Does my matter data leave my machine?** Aranya has no server and no telemetry. Claude Code sends the files it reads to your model provider, as it does on any repo. Your matters are gitignored by default, so a `git add .` in a public fork won't publish a client's file. -**Can I trust the catalog?** Each entry carries a `source_url` and a verification state, and agents can't edit it. Read the entry's `note` as well: some list points still to confirm, such as case pinpoints. Confirm against the primary source before anything goes into a filing; see [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md). +**How is the catalog kept honest?** Each entry carries its source, a verification state and when it was checked, and agents can't edit it. A citation marked `verify` or `unverified` is kept out of court-facing drafts. [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md) explains how entries are checked. ## Contributing @@ -200,7 +198,7 @@ Verified catalog entries, corrected pinpoints, and sector-specific checklists ar ## Disclaimer -Aranya provides tooling and informational structure. It does not constitute legal advice, and it does not produce environmental-impact studies. REA/HEA has no NGT precedent and is offered as persuasive methodology only. For binding decisions, instruct qualified environmental counsel and, for damage quantum, a qualified ecological expert. +AI can make mistakes. Aranya is tooling, not legal advice, and it does not produce environmental impact studies. Have a licensed attorney check everything before you rely on it, and a qualified ecological expert check any damage figure. REA/HEA is offered as persuasive comparative methodology; no NGT or Indian court has applied it yet. ## License diff --git a/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md b/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md deleted file mode 100644 index b5b3184..0000000 --- a/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,87 +0,0 @@ -# Questions for counsel: November 2026 source pack - -These are the points the catalog cannot settle. Each needs a qualified environmental lawyer before Aranya relies on it in a real matter. The statutory text below was read on 2026-11-08 from the Gazette of India text of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 as hosted by the NGT, and from the Gazette copies of the EIA Notification 2006 on the MoEFCC listing. Catalog ids in brackets refer to entries in `provisions.patch`. This is tooling, not legal advice. - -## Q1. Schedule II: head (g) or head (k) for a restoration-scaled figure - -Aranya's methodology, paper brief, sample finding and argument skill place a REA/HEA restoration figure under head (g). The catalog summary of Schedule II stopped at head (h), so head (k) never came up. No position is taken here. - -**The text** (`ngt-schedule-2`, Gazette p.16): - -> (g) Expenses incurred by the Government for any administrative or legal action or to cope with any harm or damage, including compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of environment; - -> (k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems; - -**Provisions that frame the choice:** - -- s.15(1)(c): the Tribunal may by order provide "for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit". -- s.15(4): the Tribunal may "divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit". -- s.17(1): the person responsible is liable "under all or any of the heads specified in Schedule II, as may be determined by the Tribunal". -- s.18(2)(e): an application may be made by "any person aggrieved, including any representative body or organisation". -- s.24(1): an amount ordered "on the ground of any damage to environment" is remitted to the authority under s.7A(3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 "for being credited to the Environmental Relief Fund". - -**Reading A: head (g) carries it.** The head names "compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of environment" in terms, and "including" can be read to widen the head beyond Government outlay. A REA/HEA figure prices the restoration of environmental quality, and "compensation for environmental degradation" can be read to reach interim loss of services, which is what the HEA debit measures. - -**Reading B: head (k) carries it, and (g) belongs to Government.** Head (g) opens with "Expenses incurred by the Government". On this reading the "including" words describe kinds of Government expense, so the head suits a Government claimant and sums already spent, not a projected restoration cost claimed by a private applicant. Head (k) is tied to no claimant and names "cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment", eco-systems included. - -**What we need decided:** - -1. Which head, or both, should Aranya plead by default for a restoration-scaled figure, and should the catalog and the `ngt-compensation-argument` skill say so? -2. Is head (g) open to a private or NGO applicant? -3. Does "cost of restoration" in head (k) cover compensatory restoration for interim loss (the HEA debit), or only primary restoration? If only primary, where does interim loss sit: head (g), s.15(1)(c) directly, or nowhere? -4. Can (g) and (k) be pleaded together without double recovery? -5. Does s.24(1) send a restoration award to the Environmental Relief Fund, and how does that sit with a site-specific restitution order under s.15(1)(c), with the CPCB rule that damage-track compensation is used only at the site (`cpcb-ec-2019`, clause 1.4.2), and with the NGT practice of deposit with a Pollution Control Board (`rhythm-county-2026`)? - -## Q2. Limitation: s.15(3) against s.14(3) - -- s.14(3): no application "under this section" unless made "within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose", plus up to sixty days for sufficient cause. -- s.15(3): no application for compensation, relief or restitution "under this section" unless made "within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose", plus up to sixty days for sufficient cause (`ngt-s15-3`). - -A run working from the old catalog could apply six months to a restoration claim and call it dead. In the Morvali Creek fixture the harm began in 2024 and a fish kill followed in 2026. - -1. Where one application seeks both settlement of a dispute under s.14 and restitution under s.15, which period governs which relief? -2. When harm continues or recurs, does each discharge or kill start a fresh cause, or does time run from when harm first arose? -3. Does the sixty-day proviso exclude the Limitation Act 1963, including its rule on continuing wrongs? -4. Search results say *Mantri Techzone v. Forward Foundation* (2019) treats s.14(3) and s.15(3) as separate periods, and that the Supreme Court issued notice on a challenge to the Act's limitation provisions. Neither was opened. Please confirm both and their current status. - -## Q3. Appeal against an EC under s.16 - -s.16 allows an appeal "within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him", plus up to sixty days (`ngt-s16`). Clause (h) covers "an order made ... granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986". - -1. For a third party, when is an EC "communicated": newspaper publication, upload to a Government portal, or display at the panchayat under EIA para 10(i) (`eia-2006-para-10`)? -2. Does clause (h) reach every EC under the 2006 Notification, or only clearances in areas restricted by an EPA notification? -3. Once the thirty plus sixty days have run, can the validity of the EC be raised in an application under s.14 or s.15? Does the second proviso to s.18(2) matter where the applicant also appealed? - -## Q4. Wrong appraising authority and false Form 1 (General Condition, para 8(vi)) - -The General Condition sends a Category B project within 5 km of a protected area to Central appraisal (`eia-2006-gc`, as substituted in 2014). Para 8(vi) makes deliberate concealment or false information material to appraisal a ground to reject the application or cancel the EC. The regulatory authority decides that after a personal hearing (`eia-2006-para-8-vi`). - -1. If a SEIAA appraised a project the GC sent to the Centre, is the EC void, voidable, or curable by remand? -2. Where Form 1 answers "None" and a sanctuary lies within 5 km, is that "deliberate concealment" material to appraisal? Can the NGT act on para 8(vi) in an appeal, or must the regulator decide first? -3. Items 8(a) and 8(b): S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 says the General Conditions do not apply, and the Supreme Court upheld it except Note 1 to entry 8(a) (`credai-gc-2025`). Please confirm the notified text and the 5 August 2025 order, and whether projects cleared before 2025 are affected. - -## Q5. Defects in the public hearing (Appendix IV) - -Appendix IV requires a minimum of 30 days' notice, advertisement in one major national daily and one regional vernacular daily or official State language, and a Summary EIA in English and the local language (`eia-2006-appendix-iv`). The Morvali fixture has 12 days' notice, one English paper and no local-language summary. - -1. Does a defect of this kind vitiate the hearing and the EC, or must prejudice be shown? -2. What is the usual remedy: a fresh hearing, remand for appraisal, or quashing the EC? -3. Which authorities govern? None was opened for this pack. - -## Q6. Post facto EC after *Vanashakti* (2026) - -The May 2025 judgment was recalled in November 2025 (`credai-vanashakti-2025`). The rehearing on 29 July 2026 (`vanashakti-2026`) held the prior EC regime mandatory, upheld the closed 2017 Notification, quashed the 2021 OM with prospective effect, protected ECs already granted, let pending applications run to their conclusion, and barred future post facto EC except by a valid notification under EPA s.3. It left the Court's Article 142 power intact. - -1. For a project that started without EC and has no pending 2017 or 2021 application, what route remains other than closure, demolition or a future notification? -2. Is a review or clarification of the 2026 judgment pending? The search found none. -3. MoEFCC reportedly directed resumed processing of pending applications in October 2026. Please confirm its terms. - -## Q7. Positioning REA/HEA against the CPCB method and the Supreme Court cases - -The proposal in `README.md` treats REA/HEA as a disclosed method for the CPCB "damage track". That track covers instances (d) to (f), where compensation is decided on detailed investigation by expert institutions and includes "compensation towards loss of ecology". It does not treat REA/HEA as a rival to the PI x N x R x S x LF formula, which applies to consent and direction violations. - -1. Is a REA/HEA restoration figure additional to a formula-based or project-cost-based award, or an alternative to it? In *Rhythm County* (para 42) the NGT kept a remediation bank guarantee separate from compensation for distinct violations. -2. Do the eight principles in *Amravati* (para 17), stated for guidelines under the Solid Waste Management Rules 2026, bind the NGT when it quantifies compensation under ss.15 and 17? -3. Does the *Lodhi Property* requirement of subordinate legislation reach the NGT, or only Pollution Control Boards under Water Act s.33A and Air Act s.31A? The 21 May 2026 clarifying order is known only as quoted in an NGT order, and a press report says the opposite (`dpcc-lodhi-2026-order`). -4. CPCB clause 1.3.2 says CPCB "shall list the expert institutions" for damage cases. Must an applicant's REA/HEA expert come from such a list, or can the NGT weigh any qualified expert? s.19(3) frees the Tribunal from the Evidence Act. -5. Is anything known of an NGT or Indian court order that used HEA or REA? The search found none, which is not proof of absence. diff --git a/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md b/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md deleted file mode 100644 index e212ac3..0000000 --- a/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,80 +0,0 @@ -# Catalog source pack, November 2026 - -`provisions.patch` adds 18 entries to `catalog/provisions.json` and corrects 6. Agents cannot write the catalog, so a maintainer applies the patch by hand after reading it. Every new entry traces to a source that was opened, and its `note` names the copy read and the check date. Four entries are `verify` and one is `unverified`, so the verification gate now has something to act on. No lawyer has reviewed any of it. The open legal points are in [QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md](QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md). Not legal advice. - -## Apply - -```bash -git apply catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/provisions.patch -``` - -```bash -npm run validate -- --strict -``` - -```bash -npm test -``` - -Tested on 2026-11-08 against `main` at `40ed27b`, on a clean copy. The patch applies, `validate --strict` passes on 16 files, and `npm test` shows 26 passed, 0 failed and 2 skipped (the existing Windows symlink skips). The 18 Morvali Creek findings on `eval/morvali-creek-run-1` still validate against the patched catalog. A finding that cites `goel-ganga-2018` as `source_cited` is now rejected with "must match the catalog entry (verify)". - -## What the sources changed - -- ***Vanashakti* has moved twice.** The May 2025 judgment was recalled on 18 November 2025 (2025 INSC 1326). The matter was then decided afresh on 29 July 2026 (2026 INSC 761). The prior EC regime is mandatory. The closed 2017 Notification is valid, the 2021 OM is quashed with prospective effect, and post facto EC now needs a notification under EPA s.3. The paper brief's "reported to restrict post-facto clearances" is out of date on both counts. -- **The catalog's Schedule II summary stopped at head (h).** Heads (i) to (n) were missing, including head (k), "Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment". The patch quotes all fourteen heads and leaves the (g) or (k) choice to counsel. -- **Limitation:** s.15(3) gives five years from when the cause for compensation or relief first arose, and s.16 gives thirty days from communication of the order. Each has a sixty-day proviso. -- **The General Condition has used 5 km since 2014** (10 km for listed project types), and it does not apply to items 8(a) and 8(b). -- **The CPCB method has two tracks.** The formula covers consent and direction violations. Actual damage goes to an expert, site-specific assessment, and that track is where REA/HEA fits (see below). - -## Entries and what each rests on - -"Official" means the issuing body's own site: the NGT, MoEFCC's EC listing, or `api.sci.gov.in`. - -| Entry | State | Rests on | Not confirmed | -|---|---|---|---| -| `ngt-s15-3` | source_cited | Gazette text of Act 19 of 2010 hosted by the NGT, p.6 (scan read as page images) | Consolidated text on India Code (HTTP 403) | -| `ngt-s16` | source_cited | Same Gazette, p.7; s.18(2) on p.8 | Consolidated text | -| `eia-2006-gc` | source_cited | S.O. 1599(E) of 25 June 2014, official Gazette copy, p.10 | S.O. 523(E) of 2025 and the 5 August 2025 order (known through `credai-gc-2025`); amendments after March 2025 | -| `eia-2006-para-8-vi` | source_cited | S.O. 1533(E), official scan, p.42 | None for the text | -| `eia-2006-appendix-iv` | source_cited | S.O. 3067(E) (paras 1.0 to 3.3) and S.O. 2163(E) (para 3.3(a)), official copies | Paras 4.0 to 7.1, read only in a Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation, so left out of the summary | -| `eia-2006-para-10` | source_cited | S.O. 1533(E) p.43, S.O. 3067(E) item IV, S.O. 5845(E), official copies | DEIAA wording and sub-para (iv) from S.O. 141(E) | -| `cpcb-ec-2019` | verify | The CPCB report as filed by CPCB with the NGT (E.A. 05 of 2021, filing pp.245 to 254); formula and clauses 1.5.1 to 1.5.4 also quoted in *Rhythm County* | CPCB's own copy (TLS certificate rejected); report date; the NGT acceptance order of 28 August 2019; the CPCB framework of December 2022 | -| `ngt-oa593-2019` | verify | NGT order of 19 February 2019, copy hosted by the Assam Pollution Control Board | The NGT's own copy | -| `vanashakti-2025` | source_cited | 2025 INSC 718, official PDF (operative paras 35 to 37) | None needed: entry exists to mark it recalled | -| `credai-vanashakti-2025` | source_cited | 2025 INSC 1326, official PDF: operative part, Chandran J., Bhuyan J. paras 55 to 58 | Lead opinion read in part | -| `vanashakti-2026` | source_cited | 2026 INSC 761, official PDF, compared with an SCObserver copy | MoEFCC direction of October 2026 | -| `credai-gc-2025` | source_cited | 2025 INSC 1112, official PDF, paras 22 to 25 | The 5 August 2025 order in W.P.(C) 166 of 2025 | -| `rhythm-county-2026` | source_cited | 2026 INSC 102, official PDF, read in full | Cases it quotes (*Deepak Nitrite*, *Research Foundation*, *Benzo Chem*) | -| `cl-gupta-2025` | source_cited | 2025 INSC 1035, official PDF, read in full | None | -| `dpcc-lodhi-2025` | source_cited | 2025 INSC 923, official PDF, paras 35 to 39 | Para 30 read as quoted elsewhere | -| `dpcc-lodhi-2026-order` | unverified | Quoted in an NGT order of 27 August 2026 on Indian Kanoon | The order itself; a press report says the opposite | -| `amravati-2026` | verify | 2026 INSC 796, Verdictum-hosted copy | The sci.gov.in copy; orders after 29 September 2026 | -| `goel-ganga-2018` | verify | Para 64 as quoted in *Rhythm County* para 28 | The judgment itself | - -Changed existing entries: `ngt-schedule-2` (full heads; neutral note), `ngt-s15` (points to s.15(3)), `eia-2006-process` (*Vanashakti* note replaced), `eia-notif-2006` (later amendments seen in the consolidation), `hea` and `rea` (positioning; head choice left to counsel), plus one clause in the catalog `disclaimer`. No existing `source_url` or `verification` changes, so current findings keep validating. `law_as_at` stays 2026-11-03, because the old entries were not re-checked. - -## Positioning REA/HEA against the CPCB method and the compensation cases - -This is a proposal for the maintainer and counsel, not a settled position. - -The CPCB formula, EC = PI x N x R x S x LF, is a tariff. It prices a consent or direction breach by sector, days, scale and location, and it applies only where CPCB has issued directions (clause 1.5.1). It never measures injury. For accidental or intentional discharges that cause damage, and for injection into groundwater, the same report sends compensation to detailed investigation by expert institutions. That amount covers "remediation costs, measures requiring immediate and short-term actions, compensation towards loss of ecology", spent at the site (clauses 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.5.2). The Supreme Court reads that as "a detailed, site-specific and expert-driven assessment with emphasis on remediation and restitution" (*Rhythm County*, para 46.4). In 2019 the NGT had already asked CPCB to cover "loss to ecological services" (O.A. 593/2017, para 9). REA/HEA belongs in that track as a disclosed way of sizing the restoration. It is not a rival formula for consent violations. - -*Amravati* (para 17) asks courts and tribunals to record "the valuation standard used" and "the formula or guidelines applied", and to count intangible damage and the cost of restoration. A REA/HEA run with its sensitivity range does all three in the open. Whether those principles bind the NGT is Q7. - -REA/HEA measures restoration and nothing else. The courts also price deterrence and the scale of the enterprise, through project cost or turnover with a rational nexus (*Rhythm County*, *Goel Ganga*, *C.L. Gupta*). An argument should present the REA/HEA figure as the restoration component and leave any deterrent component to its own reasoning. Whether the two add up is Q7. *Vanashakti* 2026 (para 57) says "some environmental injuries cannot be compensated in money", so a REA/HEA figure must never be argued as a price that makes the harm acceptable. - -## Other files that still state the old position - -Not edited here, because they sit outside this task. A maintainer should revisit them once counsel answers Q1: - -- `docs/handoff-rea-hea-note.md`: lines 22, 43 and 45 (head (g) as the head) and line 54 (*Vanashakti* "reported to restrict post-facto"). -- `docs/METHODOLOGY.md`: line 55 (head (g)). -- `README.md`: lines 43, 100, 117 and 161 (head (g)). -- `matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json`: lines 3 and 5 (head (g)). -- `.claude/skills/ngt-compensation-argument/SKILL.md`: line 24 cites Schedule II without a head. It is safe as written, but the skill should say which head once Q1 is answered. - -## Sources that could not be reached - -- India Code, `indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025`: HTTP 403 and an edge-server error on 2026-11-05. -- CPCB, `cpcb.nic.in/uploads/report-15.07.2019.pdf`: TLS certificate rejected. TLS checks were not bypassed. -- MoEFCC EC listing: ends at S.O. 3372(E) of 26 July 2023. Amendments reported for 2025 and 2026 (Appendix VI replaced in July 2026; drafts of March and May 2026) were not checked. diff --git a/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/provisions.patch b/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/provisions.patch deleted file mode 100644 index ec75688..0000000 --- a/catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/provisions.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,69 +0,0 @@ -diff --git a/catalog/provisions.json b/catalog/provisions.json -index a6a7a66..e6200a0 100644 ---- a/catalog/provisions.json -+++ b/catalog/provisions.json -@@ -1,26 +1,33 @@ - { - "law_as_at": "2026-11-03", -- "disclaimer": "Seed catalog for Aranya, not legal advice and not exhaustive. Items marked \"source_cited\" were checked against the cited primary source on 2026-11-03; items marked \"verify\" or \"unverified\" must still be confirmed against primary sources (Gazette of India, indiacode.nic.in, environmentclearance.nic.in, greentribunal.gov.in, the SCC/official reports) by a qualified person before use in any court-facing document.", -+ "disclaimer": "Seed catalog for Aranya, not legal advice and not exhaustive. Items marked \"source_cited\" were checked against the cited primary source on 2026-11-03, except entries added in the November 2026 source pack, whose notes give their own check date and the copy read; items marked \"verify\" or \"unverified\" must still be confirmed against primary sources (Gazette of India, indiacode.nic.in, environmentclearance.nic.in, greentribunal.gov.in, the SCC/official reports) by a qualified person before use in any court-facing document.", - "instruments": [ - { "id": "ngt-act-2010", "label": "National Green Tribunal Act, 2010", "citation": "Act 19 of 2010", "year": 2010, "in_force": true, "commencement": "18 October 2010", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Enacted 2 June 2010; in force 18 October 2010. Amended by the Finance Act 2017 and the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 (per the India Code consolidated text)." }, - { "id": "epa-1986", "label": "Environment (Protection) Act, 1986", "citation": "Act 29 of 1986", "year": 1986, "in_force": true, "commencement": "19 November 1986", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/13656", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Enacted 23 May 1986. Parent statute for the EIA and CRZ notifications (s.3)." }, -- { "id": "eia-notif-2006", "label": "Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006", "citation": "S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006, under EPA 1986", "year": 2006, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "The official MoEFCC listing opens with S.O. 1533(E) of 14 September 2006 and runs through amendments to S.O. 3372(E) of 26 July 2023. The draft EIA Notification 2020 (released 12 March 2020) was NOT notified and is not law; never cite the 2020 draft as operative. Re-check the listing for amendments after 2023." }, -+ { "id": "eia-notif-2006", "label": "Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006", "citation": "S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006, under EPA 1986", "year": 2006, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "The official MoEFCC listing opens with S.O. 1533(E) of 14 September 2006 and runs through amendments to S.O. 3372(E) of 26 July 2023; it still ended there on 2026-11-05. A Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation to March 2025 records later amendments, including S.O. 2115(E) of 7 June 2024, S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 (items 8(a)/8(b): see credai-gc-2025) and S.O. 1223(E) of 17 March 2025; these were not opened at the Gazette. The draft EIA Notification 2020 (released 12 March 2020) was NOT notified and is not law; never cite the 2020 draft as operative." }, - { "id": "water-1974", "label": "Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974", "citation": "Act 6 of 1974", "year": 1974, "in_force": true, "commencement": "23 March 1974", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15429", "verification": "source_cited" }, - { "id": "air-1981", "label": "Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981", "citation": "Act 14 of 1981", "year": 1981, "in_force": true, "commencement": "29 March 1981", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/9462", "verification": "source_cited" }, - { "id": "forest-1980", "label": "Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980", "citation": "Act 69 of 1980", "year": 1980, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/19381", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Renamed Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 (reported in force 1 December 2023 - single secondary source; confirm the commencement notification)." }, - { "id": "biodiv-2002", "label": "Biological Diversity Act, 2002", "citation": "Act 18 of 2003", "year": 2002, "in_force": true, "commencement": "assent 5 February 2003", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/21545", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Amended by the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act 2023 (assent 3 August 2023), brought into force 1 April 2024 by Gazette notification." }, - { "id": "wildlife-1972", "label": "Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972", "citation": "Act 53 of 1972", "year": 1972, "in_force": true, "commencement": "9 September 1972", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/6198", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "NOT listed in NGT Schedule I: harm arising only under this Act may fall outside the NGT's jurisdiction. Confirmed against Schedule I of the NGT Act." }, -- { "id": "crz-notif-2019", "label": "Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019", "citation": "G.S.R. 37(E), 18 January 2019, under EPA 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986", "year": 2019, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://www.keralaczma.gov.in/images/pdf/Notifications/CRZ%20Notification%202019%20with%20Amendments.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Correct citation is G.S.R. 37(E) of 18 January 2019 - NOT S.O. 114(E), which was the 1991 CRZ notification. Supersedes the 2011 notification (S.O. 19(E)). Amended by S.O. 4886(E) of 26 Nov 2021 and S.O. 5495(E) of 24 Nov 2022; check for later amendments against the Gazette." } -+ { "id": "crz-notif-2019", "label": "Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019", "citation": "G.S.R. 37(E), 18 January 2019, under EPA 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986", "year": 2019, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://www.keralaczma.gov.in/images/pdf/Notifications/CRZ%20Notification%202019%20with%20Amendments.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Correct citation is G.S.R. 37(E) of 18 January 2019 - NOT S.O. 114(E), which was the 1991 CRZ notification. Supersedes the 2011 notification (S.O. 19(E)). Amended by S.O. 4886(E) of 26 Nov 2021 and S.O. 5495(E) of 24 Nov 2022; check for later amendments against the Gazette." }, -+ { "id": "cpcb-ec-2019", "label": "CPCB In-house Committee report: Methodology for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund", "citation": "Central Pollution Control Board, 2019 (date uncertain: see note)", "year": 2019, "summary": "Chapter I lists six instances: (a) discharges in violation of consent conditions; (b) non-compliance with directions; (c) intentional avoidance of data submission or tampering with online monitoring; (d) accidental discharges of short duration resulting in damage to the environment; (e) intentional discharges to land, water or air resulting in acute injury or damage; (f) injection of effluents into groundwater. For (a) to (c), EC = PI x N x R x S x LF: PI 80, 50 or 30 for red, orange or green sectors; N days of violation; R = Rs 250 (range 100 to 500); S 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 by scale; LF 1.0 to 2.0 by city population, 2.0 for notified ecologically sensitive areas; minimum Rs 5,000 a day; multipliers for repeated or continuing violation (1.3.1). For (d) to (f), compensation has an immediate-relief part and a long-term remediation part, decided on detailed investigation by expert institutions, with a remediation plan supervised by SPCB, CPCB and the experts (1.3.2, 1.5.2). Where EC is assessed on actual damage, the amount is remediation costs, immediate and short-term measures and compensation towards loss of ecology, used only at the specific site (1.4.2). The formula applies only where CPCB has issued directions under the EPA (1.5.1). EC is not a substitute for action under the EPA, Water or Air Acts (1.5.4). Chapters II to IV cover GRAP violations, sewage and solid waste, and illegal groundwater extraction.", "source_url": "https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/news_updates/Compliance%20Affidavit%20on%20behalf%20of%20R-1,%20with%20Report%20of%20the%20CPCB%20in%20house%20committee%20in%20E.A.No_.%2005-2021%20(page%20nos.%20241-287).pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 in the copy CPCB filed with the NGT (Western Zone) on 9 December 2021 in E.A. 05 of 2021 in O.A. 97 of 2019 (WZ), filing pp.245 to 254. The copy on cpcb.nic.in (uploads/report-15.07.2019.pdf) was unreachable: TLS certificate rejected. Official corroboration: the formula and clauses 1.5.1 to 1.5.4 are quoted in rhythm-county-2026 (paras 40, 41); the instances and notes match the December 2018 draft quoted in ngt-oa593-2019, which left LF for sensitive areas open and had no repeat multipliers. Date: Rhythm County (para 13.6) calls it the report dated 31.05.2019; secondary sources say 15 July 2019 and NGT acceptance on 28 August 2019; the acceptance order was not opened. Not statutory: 'facilitative and indicative, not prescriptive or exhaustive' (rhythm-county-2026, para 41). CPCB later issued a 'General framework for imposing environmental damage compensation' (December 2022), named in dpcc-lodhi-2025, para 35; not opened. For how REA/HEA sits against this, see hea." } - ], - "provisions": [ - { "id": "ngt-s14", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.14", "label": "Tribunal to settle disputes", "summary": "Jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment arises and the question arises out of the implementation of the enactments in Schedule I. An application must be made within six months of the date on which the cause of action first arose, extendable by up to sixty days for sufficient cause.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Six-month limitation (plus up to 60 days) confirmed against the Act text." }, -- { "id": "ngt-s15", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.15", "label": "Relief, compensation and restitution", "summary": "The Tribunal may order (a) relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the Schedule I enactments, (b) restitution of property damaged, and (c) restitution of the environment 'for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit'. This relief is in addition to any relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Clause (c), restitution of the environment, is the statutory hook for restoration-scaled claims. Quoted verbatim from the Act." }, -+ { "id": "ngt-s15", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.15", "label": "Relief, compensation and restitution", "summary": "The Tribunal may order (a) relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the Schedule I enactments, (b) restitution of property damaged, and (c) restitution of the environment 'for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit'. This relief is in addition to any relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Clause (c), restitution of the environment, is the statutory hook for restoration-scaled claims. Quoted verbatim from the Act. Limitation for a s.15 application is in s.15(3): five years from when the cause for compensation or relief first arose (ngt-s15-3). The six months in s.14(3) is written for applications under s.14 (ngt-s14). Which period governs a given claim is for counsel: see catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q2." }, -+ { "id": "ngt-s15-3", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.15(3)", "label": "Limitation for compensation, relief and restitution", "summary": "No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under s.15 shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose. Proviso: if satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause, the Tribunal may allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.", "source_url": "https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/National_Green_Tribunal_Act,_2010.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 from the page image of the Gazette of India text of Act 19 of 2010 (Gazette p.6) as hosted by the NGT. India Code (handle 2025) returned HTTP 403, so the consolidated text was not compared; confirm on India Code that no later amendment touches s.15(3). Contrast s.14(3): six months from when the cause of action for the dispute first arose (ngt-s14). How 'first arose' applies to continuing or recurring harm is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q2." }, -+ { "id": "ngt-s16", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.16", "label": "Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction", "summary": "Any person aggrieved by an order listed in clauses (a) to (j), made on or after the Act's commencement, may appeal to the Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him. Clause (h): an order granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the EPA 1986. Clause (i): an order refusing environmental clearance under the EPA 1986. The other clauses cover Water Act ss.28, 29 and 33A, Water Cess Act s.13, Forest (Conservation) Act s.2, Air Act s.31, EPA s.5 directions and Biological Diversity Act determinations. Proviso: a further period not exceeding sixty days for sufficient cause.", "source_url": "https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/National_Green_Tribunal_Act,_2010.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 from the page image of the Gazette text as hosted by the NGT (Gazette p.7). Consolidated text on India Code not compared (HTTP 403). Section 18(2), second proviso (Gazette p.8), bars a person who has preferred a s.16 appeal from applying under s.18(2) for relief, compensation or settlement of dispute; read it before advising on both routes. When an EC counts as 'communicated' to a third party is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q3." }, - { "id": "ngt-s17", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.17", "label": "Liability to pay relief or compensation", "summary": "Where death, injury, or damage to property or the environment results from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity, operation or process under a Schedule I enactment, the responsible person is liable to pay relief or compensation under the heads in Schedule II as the Tribunal determines; the Tribunal may apportion liability where it cannot be attributed to a single person.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited" }, - { "id": "ngt-s20", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.20", "label": "Tribunal to apply certain principles", "summary": "The Tribunal shall, while passing any order, decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Quoted from the Act text." }, - { "id": "ngt-schedule-1", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "Schedule I", "label": "Scheduled enactments (seven)", "summary": "[See ss.14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2), 19(4)(j), 34(1)] The seven enactments: (1) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974; (2) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1977; (3) Forest (Conservation) Act 1980; (4) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981; (5) Environment (Protection) Act 1986; (6) Public Liability Insurance Act 1991; (7) Biological Diversity Act 2002.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Enumeration confirmed verbatim against the Act. The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 is not in Schedule I." }, -- { "id": "ngt-schedule-2", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "Schedule II", "label": "Heads of compensation and relief", "summary": "[See ss.15(4) and 17(1)] Heads under which compensation or relief may be claimed, including death, disability, loss of wages, medical expenses, damage to private property, government relief expenses, and head (g): expenses incurred by the Government for administrative or legal action or to cope with harm or damage, 'including compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of the environment', plus losses to government and harm to fauna.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Head (g), covering restoration of the quality of the environment, is where a REA/HEA-scaled figure would sit. Quoted verbatim." }, -+ { "id": "ngt-schedule-2", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "Schedule II", "label": "Heads of compensation and relief", "summary": "[See ss.15(4) and 17(1)] Heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be claimed: (a) Death; (b) Permanent, temporary, total or partial disability or other injury or sickness; (c) Loss of wages due to total or partial disability or permanent or temporary disability; (d) Medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries or sickness; (e) Damages to private property; (f) Expenses incurred by the Government or any local authority in providing relief, aid and rehabilitation to the affected persons; (g) Expenses incurred by the Government for any administrative or legal action or to cope with any harm or damage, including compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of environment; (h) Loss to the Government or local authority arising out of, or connected with, the activity causing any damage; (i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna; (j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards; (k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems; (l) Loss and destruction of any property other than private property; (m) Loss of business or employment or both; (n) Any other claim arising out of, or connected with, any activity of handling of hazardous substance.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "All fourteen heads quoted verbatim; re-read on 2026-11-08 against the Gazette text of Act 19 of 2010 as hosted by the NGT (Gazette p.16). The earlier summary of this entry omitted heads (i) to (n), including (k). Which head a restoration-scaled figure belongs under, (g) or (k) or both, and whether head (g) is open to a private applicant, is undecided: see catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q1. Do not plead either head as settled." }, - { "id": "epa-s3", "instrument_id": "epa-1986", "section": "s.3", "label": "Power of Central Government to take measures", "summary": "The Central Government may take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient to protect and improve the quality of the environment (s.3(1)); s.3(2) enumerates specific powers and s.3(3) allows constitution of authorities. This is the source of authority for the EIA Notification 2006 and the CRZ Notification.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/13656", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "General power confirmed; read s.3(1)-(3) for the specific sub-clause relied on in a given matter." }, -- { "id": "eia-2006-process", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 7", "label": "EC appraisal stages", "summary": "Paragraph 7 provides four stages for prior environmental clearance: (1) Screening (only for Category B, to decide B1/B2), (2) Scoping (Terms of Reference), (3) Public Consultation (public hearing plus written responses), and (4) Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Category A, MoEFCC) or State EAC (Category B, SEIAA), leading to grant or refusal with conditions. The stages are sequential and not all apply to every project.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Four-stage structure of para 7 confirmed. Separately verify: the Supreme Court in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025) is reported to have restricted post-facto environmental clearances; confirm before advising on ex post facto ECs." } -+ { "id": "eia-2006-process", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 7", "label": "EC appraisal stages", "summary": "Paragraph 7 provides four stages for prior environmental clearance: (1) Screening (only for Category B, to decide B1/B2), (2) Scoping (Terms of Reference), (3) Public Consultation (public hearing plus written responses), and (4) Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Category A, MoEFCC) or State EAC (Category B, SEIAA), leading to grant or refusal with conditions. The stages are sequential and not all apply to every project.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Four-stage structure of para 7 confirmed. Ex post facto EC: Vanashakti-I (2025), which barred it, was recalled on review (credai-vanashakti-2025) and the matter was decided afresh in vanashakti-2026; read that entry before advising on post facto ECs. Obligations after grant sit in para 10 (eia-2006-para-10) and the EC's own conditions, not in para 7." }, -+ { "id": "eia-2006-gc", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "Schedule, Note: General Condition (GC)", "label": "General Condition: Category B appraised at the Central level", "summary": "Any project or activity specified in Category 'B' will be appraised at the Central level as Category 'A' if located in whole or in part within 5 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972; (ii) Critically polluted areas identified by the CPCB from time to time; (iii) Eco-sensitive areas notified under s.3(2) of the EPA 1986; (iv) inter-State and international boundaries. For river valley projects (item 1(c)), thermal power plants (1(d)), industrial estates, parks, EPZs, SEZs, biotech parks and leather complexes (7(c)) and common TSDFs (7(d)), appraisal is at the Central level even if located within 10 km. The inter-State boundary distance may be reduced or removed by agreement between the States or Union Territories if the activity is not within the distance of items (i) to (iii). The GC applies only to items whose column 5 says so; it does not apply to items 8(a) and 8(b).", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/15_SO1599_E_25062014.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Text as substituted by S.O. 1599(E) of 25 June 2014, read on 2026-11-05 in the Gazette copy on the MoEFCC listing (Gazette p.10). Earlier wording (S.O. 3067(E) of 1 December 2009) not checked; do not rely on a recollected 10 km rule for protected areas. Items 8(a)/8(b): S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 states General Conditions shall not apply; the Supreme Court upheld it on 5 August 2025 in W.P.(C) 166 of 2025, except Note 1 to entry 8(a), as recorded in credai-gc-2025. Neither S.O. 523(E) nor that order was opened. Amendments after March 2025 not checked." }, -+ { "id": "eia-2006-para-8-vi", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 8(vi)", "label": "Concealment or false information", "summary": "Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/1_SO1533E_14092006.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 from the page image of S.O. 1533(E) as listed by MoEFCC (Gazette p.42). The Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation to March 2025 shows the same words with no amendment footnote. Cancellation on this ground is for the regulatory authority after a hearing; whether the NGT may itself set an EC aside on this ground is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q4." }, -+ { "id": "eia-2006-appendix-iv", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "Appendix IV", "label": "Procedure for conduct of public hearing", "summary": "Public hearing at or near the site, district-wise, by the SPCB or UTPCC (1.0). The applicant sends at least 10 hard and equal soft copies of the draft EIA report, including the Summary EIA report in English and in the official language of the State/local language, and copies go to the District Magistrate, Zila Parishad or Municipal Corporation, District Industries Office, ULBs/PRIs and the MoEF Regional Office (2.2), which publicise it and make it available for inspection (2.3, 2.4). The Member-Secretary fixes date, time and venue within 7 days of receiving the draft EIA report and advertises in one major National Daily and one Regional vernacular Daily/Official State Language; a minimum notice period of 30 days is given for responses (3.1). Where newspapers do not reach, other means such as beating of drums, radio or television (3.2). No postponement unless an untoward emergency, on the District Magistrate recommendation (3.3); a rescheduled hearing is at least 45 days from the first advertisement, with at least 15 days of notice before the new date (3.3(a)).", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/4_SO3067E_01122009.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Appendix IV as substituted by S.O. 3067(E) of 1 December 2009 (paras 1.0 to 3.3 read on 2026-11-05 in the Gazette copy on the MoEFCC listing) and para 3.3(a) as inserted by S.O. 2163(E) of 9 May 2022 (read in its Gazette copy). Paras 4.0 to 7.1 (presiding officer, videography, minutes in the local language, completion in 45 days) and the proviso to 4.0 allowing a Sub-Divisional Magistrate were read only in the Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation and are not summarised here. Whether a defect in the hearing vitiates the EC is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q5." }, -+ { "id": "eia-2006-para-10", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 10", "label": "Post environmental clearance monitoring", "summary": "(i) Category A: the project proponent makes the EC public with its conditions and safeguards by advertising it in at least two local newspapers and displaying it permanently on its website; Category B: the proponent advertises that EC has been accorded with details of the MoEF website where it is displayed; MoEF and SEIAAs place the EC on a Government portal; copies go to heads of local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal Bodies and relevant Government offices, which display them for 30 days from receipt. (ii) The project management must submit half-yearly compliance reports on the stipulated EC terms and conditions, in soft copy, to the regulatory authority on 1 June and 1 December of each calendar year. (iii) All such compliance reports are public documents; copies are given to any person on application, and the latest is displayed on the website of the regulatory authority.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/4_SO3067E_01122009.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Assembled from Gazette texts read on 2026-11-05 and 2026-11-08: S.O. 1533(E), Gazette p.43 (original paras 10(i) and (ii)); S.O. 3067(E) of 1 December 2009, item IV (new sub-para (i), renumbering); S.O. 5845(E) of 26 November 2018 (hard and soft copies replaced by soft copy). The consolidation also shows DEIAAs added and a sub-para (iv) on sand mining by S.O. 141(E) of 15 January 2016, which it records as suspended by the NGT; neither checked at the Gazette. Para 10 governs publicity and compliance reporting; it does not itself state the consequence of breaching an EC condition. That turns on the terms of the EC and the EPA 1986 (s.15 as substituted by the Jan Vishwas Act 2023, not in this catalog)." } - ], - "doctrines": [ - { "id": "polluter-pays", "label": "Polluter pays principle", "summary": "The polluter bears the cost of both compensation to victims and restoration of the degraded environment; part of Indian environmental law and expressly directed by NGT Act s.20.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Leading authorities: Vellore Citizens (1996) 5 SCC 647 and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996) 3 SCC 212." }, -@@ -31,10 +38,21 @@ - "cases": [ - { "id": "vellore-1996", "label": "Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India", "citation": "(1996) 5 SCC 647", "principle": "Precautionary and polluter pays principles are part of Indian environmental law; sustainable development adopted.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 28 August 1996 (Kuldip Singh and K. Venkataswami JJ.); also AIR 1996 SC 2715. Concerned pollution of the river Palar by Vellore tanneries. Confirm pinpoints against the SCC report." }, - { "id": "icela-1996", "label": "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India", "citation": "(1996) 3 SCC 212", "principle": "Absolute liability of an enterprise carrying on a hazardous activity; polluter pays for remediation of the affected area (Bichhri).", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818014/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 13 February 1996 (B.P. Jeevan Reddy J.); also AIR 1996 SC 1446. Confirm specific paragraph pinpoints against the SCC report before relying on them." }, -- { "id": "mc-mehta-kamal-nath-1997", "label": "M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath", "citation": "(1997) 1 SCC 388", "principle": "Public trust doctrine is part of the law of India; the polluter must bear the cost of reversing the ecological damage caused.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1239689/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 13 December 1996 (Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ.); Span Motel on the river Beas. doc/1239689 is the Supreme Court's 2002 order in the same petition restating the 1997 holding; confirm paragraph pinpoints against (1997) 1 SCC 388." } -+ { "id": "mc-mehta-kamal-nath-1997", "label": "M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath", "citation": "(1997) 1 SCC 388", "principle": "Public trust doctrine is part of the law of India; the polluter must bear the cost of reversing the ecological damage caused.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1239689/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 13 December 1996 (Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ.); Span Motel on the river Beas. doc/1239689 is the Supreme Court's 2002 order in the same petition restating the 1997 holding; confirm paragraph pinpoints against (1997) 1 SCC 388." }, -+ { "id": "ngt-oa593-2019", "label": "Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (NGT order of 19 February 2019)", "citation": "NGT Principal Bench, O.A. No. 593/2017 (arising from W.P.(C) 375/2012), order dated 19.02.2019", "principle": "Recorded the December 2018 CPCB methodology for environmental compensation (PI x N x R x S x LF for consent and direction violations; detailed investigation by expert institutions for damage cases) and asked CPCB to also cover 'loss to ecological services due to illegal mining, due to deforestation or any other damage to the environment', taking inputs from bodies such as IEG, CSE, TERI and IIFM Bhopal (paras 6 to 9).", "source_url": "https://pcbassam.org/court%20cases/NGT/593_2017/NGT%20Order%20-19.2.2019%20compensation%20593_2017.pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Read on 2026-11-05 in the copy hosted by the Pollution Control Board, Assam, not on greentribunal.gov.in. Coram: Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chairperson), S.P. Wangdi, K. Ramakrishnan, Dr Nagin Nanda. The proceedings follow the Supreme Court order of 22 February 2017 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 326 (not opened). The later order said to accept the CPCB report (28 August 2019) was not opened." }, -+ { "id": "vanashakti-2025", "label": "Vanashakti v. Union of India (Vanashakti-I)", "citation": "2025 INSC 718, W.P.(C) 1394 of 2023, decided 16 May 2025 (Oka and Bhuyan JJ.)", "principle": "RECALLED on 18 November 2025 (credai-vanashakti-2025) and the matter decided afresh in vanashakti-2026. Not good law; do not cite for any proposition. It had struck down the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM on ex post facto EC and restrained the Centre from issuing any such instrument, leaving ECs already granted unaffected (paras 35, 36).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/50009/50009_2023_3_1502_61809_Judgement_16-May-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. Kept so that a run meeting this citation, or a brief describing it as restricting post facto clearances, resolves it to its current status." }, -+ { "id": "credai-vanashakti-2025", "label": "Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti (review)", "citation": "2025 INSC 1326, R.P.(C) Diary No. 41929 of 2025 in W.P.(C) 1394 of 2023, decided 18 November 2025 (Gavai CJI; Chandran J. concurring; Bhuyan J. dissenting)", "principle": "By 2:1 the review was allowed, Vanashakti-I recalled and the writ petitions and appeal restored to file (Gavai CJI, paras 141 to 143). Chandran J. concurred that review was warranted and did not decide the validity of the 2017 Notification. Bhuyan J. would have dismissed the review (para 58). The bench that reheard the matter held that the ratio of the review order goes no further than the two grounds of recall (vanashakti-2026, para 21).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41929/41929_2025_1_1501_66095_Judgement_18-Nov-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05: operative paragraphs, the opinion of Chandran J. and paras 55 to 58 of the dissent read directly; the reasoning of the lead opinion read in part and through the account in vanashakti-2026, paras 13 to 21. Superseded on the merits by vanashakti-2026; cite it only for the recall." }, -+ { "id": "vanashakti-2026", "label": "Vanashakti v. Union of India (rehearing after recall)", "citation": "2026 INSC 761, W.P.(C) 1394 of 2023 and connected matters, decided 29 July 2026 (Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi JJ.)", "principle": "The prior EC regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory and, unless amended by an appropriate notification, does not accommodate post facto EC or retention of projects begun without a valid EC. The Centre may issue a narrowly tailored, time-bound amnesty notification under EPA s.3 in supervening public interest; the 2017 Notification is valid on that footing. The 2021 OM, an administrative order creating a perpetual regime, is quashed with prospective effect. ECs already granted under either instrument stay valid unless individually challenged; pending applications go to their logical conclusion; no fresh applications; no future post facto EC by administrative order. The Article 142 power of the Court is unaffected. The reading in Electrosteel that the Act and Notification accommodate post facto EC is disapproved; Pahwa and D. Swamy are overruled so far as they treat the 2021 OM as valid (paras 79 to 81).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/50009/50009_2023_1_1501_72722_Judgement_29-Jul-2026.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05; operative part identical to the SCObserver copy also read. On compensation: an amnesty must subject violators to damage assessment, remediation and compensatory liability (paras 39, 54, 61 to 64); 'some environmental injuries cannot be compensated in money' (para 57); the 2017 Notification requires ecological damage assessment and remediation and resource augmentation plans by a laboratory notified under the EPA, accredited by NABL or belonging to a CSIR institution, with no cap on compensation (para 62); the 2021 OM had fixed compensation at 1% of project cost plus 0.25% of turnover in the violation period (para 67). An MoEFCC OM of 20 January 2026 (para 77) had directed pending applications to be processed subject to further orders; a later MoEFCC direction (reported October 2026) was not opened. No review of this judgment found as at 2026-11-08 (search only)." }, -+ { "id": "credai-gc-2025", "label": "CREDAI v. Union of India (General Conditions and items 8(a), 8(b))", "citation": "2025 INSC 1112, C.A. 10043 of 2024 with C.A. 5532 of 2025, decided 12 September 2025 (Pardiwala and Mahadevan JJ.)", "principle": "Disposed of appeals against the NGT order of 9 August 2024 (building and construction projects within 5 km of the GC areas to be treated as Category A) in the light of the coordinate bench order of 5 August 2025 in W.P.(C) 166 of 2025: the General Conditions were never attracted to items 8(a) and 8(b); S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 and the OM of 30 January 2025 upheld except Note 1 to entry 8(a), which was quashed; SEIAA, an expert body, appraises such projects. The 2025 Notification, excluding Note 1 to entry 8(a), holds the field (paras 23 to 25).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/38099/38099_2024_8_1508_64231_Judgement_12-Sep-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. The 5 August 2025 order (listed on Indian Kanoon as Vanashakti v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 166 of 2025, Gavai CJI; a different matter from the post facto EC cases) was not read beyond its caption; its holding is taken from paras 22 to 24 here." }, -+ { "id": "rhythm-county-2026", "label": "M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde", "citation": "2026 INSC 102, C.A. 7187 of 2022 with C.A. 7974 of 2022 (Key Stone Properties), decided 30 January 2026 (Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi JJ.)", "principle": "NGT Act ss.15, 17 and 20 let the NGT quantify environmental compensation without a legislated formula (paras 19 to 25). Turnover or project cost may be a relevant yardstick where the facts warrant, but not a blunt instrument; compensation must be rational, proportionate and reasoned (paras 32, 39, 46.2). The 5% of project cost in goel-ganga-2018 is a general guide, not a ceiling (para 45). The CPCB methodology is facilitative and indicative, not prescriptive: its formula is confined to limited categories of violation arising from directions under the EPA, and other cases call for 'a detailed, site-specific and expert-driven assessment with emphasis on remediation and restitution' (paras 40, 41, 46.4). The NGT may still use the CPCB framework and expert committees if it applies its own mind (paras 42 to 44). Both NGT awards upheld.", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/30735/30735_2022_8_1501_67798_Judgement_30-Jan-2026.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. Reads Benzo Chem Industrial (P) Ltd. v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan (C.A. 9202-9203 of 2022) and cl-gupta-2025 as turning on conjecture, lack of notice and lack of nexus, not a bar on turnover (paras 35 to 38). Relies on Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 6 SCC 402, para 6, and Research Foundation for Science (18) v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186, para 30, both quoted, not opened. The Keystone figure was the CPCB formula, 50 x 1909 x 250 x 1.5 x 1.25 (para 43)." }, -+ { "id": "cl-gupta-2025", "label": "M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. v. Adil Ansari", "citation": "2025 INSC 1035, C.A. 2864 of 2022, decided 22 August 2025 (Gavai CJI and K. Vinod Chandran J.)", "principle": "Set aside the Rs 50 crore compensation the NGT fixed on turnover, for want of nexus between turnover and the pollution alleged; if the NGT thought the EC imposed too low it 'could have referred to the methodology framed by the CPCB and not merely looked at the revenue generation of the alleged polluter' (para 11). The audit, monitoring and restoration directions of the NGT stand (paras 9, 13). The NGT cannot direct prosecution under the PMLA (para 12).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/10809/10809_2022_10_1501_63545_Judgement_22-Aug-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. Read down by rhythm-county-2026 (paras 37, 38) as not barring turnover as a factor." }, -+ { "id": "dpcc-lodhi-2025", "label": "Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.", "citation": "2025 INSC 923, C.A. 757-760 of 2013 with C.A. 1977-2011 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025 (P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra JJ.)", "principle": "Pollution Control Boards may impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages as fixed sums, or require bank guarantees as an ex ante measure, under Water Act s.33A and Air Act s.31A (para 39(b)), on a determination that environmental damage has been caused or is imminent (para 30). Rules and regulations must set out the methods by which damage is determined and quantum assessed, with natural justice; the CPCB document 'General framework for imposing environmental damage compensation' (December 2022) should be reviewed and issued as rules (para 35). The power is to be enforced only after such subordinate legislation (para 39(c)); see dpcc-lodhi-2026-order.", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/40604/40604_2012_6_1501_62921_Judgement_04-Aug-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05 (paras 35 to 39 directly; para 30 as quoted in the NGT order cited in dpcc-lodhi-2026-order). Concerns Boards under the Water and Air Acts, not the NGT under NGT Act ss.15 and 17; rhythm-county-2026 records it only as argued (para 13.13)." }, -+ { "id": "dpcc-lodhi-2026-order", "label": "Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (clarifying order)", "citation": "Supreme Court order dated 21 May 2026 in C.A. 757-760 of 2013", "principle": "As quoted: the 4 August 2025 directions 'should not be understood to mean that the regulators, being the Pollution Control Boards cannot proceed to impose and collect the compensatory environmental damages in the absence of subordinate legislation, on the subject' (para 2).", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29536194/", "verification": "unverified", "note": "Not opened at source. Read only as quoted in the NGT order of 27 August 2026 in O.A. 1025 of 2024, Surender Singh Parihar v. State of U.P., paras 81 to 84, on Indian Kanoon. A press report of 21 May 2026 describes the Supreme Court as saying Boards cannot levy compensation without rules, the opposite of the quoted text. Pull the order from sci.gov.in before relying on either." }, -+ { "id": "amravati-2026", "label": "Amravati Municipal Corporation v. Ganesh Dadarao Anasane", "citation": "2026 INSC 796, C.A. 4020 of 2020 with C.A. 8630 of 2022, judgment of 4 August 2026 (P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe JJ.)", "principle": "Directing MoEFCC to frame environmental compensation guidelines under Rule 17(2) of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2026, the Court stated eight principles (para 17): compensation is restitutionary and additional to penalty; liability lasts until the damage is reversed; authorities must value the damage and collect what restoration requires; tangible and intangible damage both count; imminent or potential harm suffices; the capacity of the polluter, the cost of assessment, the loss to individuals and the environment and the cost of remediation or restoration are factors; compensation must be proportional with a rational nexus to the pollution; courts and tribunals must record reasons, listing the factors considered, the valuation standard used and the formula or guidelines applied.", "source_url": "https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/05/amaravati-municipal-corporation-v-ganesh-dadarao-1782037.pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Read on 2026-11-05 in a Verdictum-hosted copy of the judgment; the sci.gov.in copy was not found. The principles are stated for guidelines under the SWM Rules; whether they bind NGT quantification under ss.15 and 17 is for counsel. Listed again on 29 September 2026; later orders not checked." }, -+ { "id": "goel-ganga-2018", "label": "Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India", "citation": "(2018) 18 SCC 257", "principle": "For an intransigent violator the Court fixed damages at Rs 100 crore or 10% of project cost, whichever is more, after observing that it 'has in a number of cases awarded 5% of the project cost as damages. This is the general law' (para 64, as quoted).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/30735/30735_2022_8_1501_67798_Judgement_30-Jan-2026.pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Not opened. Para 64 read only as quoted in rhythm-county-2026, para 28 (the source_url), which treats 5% as a general guide, not a ceiling (para 45). Confirm the paragraph against the SCC report." } - ], - "methodologies": [ -- { "id": "hea", "label": "Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA)", "summary": "Sizes compensatory restoration by equating the discounted flow of habitat services lost through injury with the discounted service gains of a restoration project (discounted service-acre-years). Used in U.S. natural resource damage assessment under CERCLA/OPA.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7007898/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use. Present only as a persuasive comparative methodology via foreign-authority-handler; the restoration-cost output sits under NGT s.15/s.17 and Schedule II head (g), which is a novel argument in India." }, -- { "id": "rea", "label": "Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA)", "summary": "Variant of equivalency analysis that scales restoration against a specific resource service (for example fisheries production or recreational use) rather than habitat area. Distinct from HEA; the choice of method is itself part of the expert argument.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800903002519", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use. Keep distinct from HEA in any filing." } -+ { "id": "hea", "label": "Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA)", "summary": "Sizes compensatory restoration by equating the discounted flow of habitat services lost through injury with the discounted service gains of a restoration project (discounted service-acre-years). Used in U.S. natural resource damage assessment under CERCLA/OPA.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7007898/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use found (searches to 2026-11-08; a negative search, not proof of absence). Present only as a persuasive comparative methodology via foreign-authority-handler. Statutory hook: s.15(1)(c) and s.17, with a Schedule II head that counsel must choose, (g) or (k) (catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q1). The Indian slot for it is the damage track of the CPCB methodology: where compensation is decided on detailed investigation by expert institutions, the amount is remediation costs, immediate and short-term measures and 'compensation towards loss of ecology', used at the specific site (cpcb-ec-2019, clauses 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.5.2). The Supreme Court reads that track as 'a detailed, site-specific and expert-driven assessment with emphasis on remediation and restitution' (rhythm-county-2026, para 46.4), and courts must record the valuation standard and formula used (amravati-2026, para 17(VIII)). REA/HEA sizes restoration only; it does not measure deterrence, gain or the scale of the enterprise, which the courts also weigh (rhythm-county-2026, goel-ganga-2018). Present it as the expert assessment on the damage track, never as a replacement for the CPCB formula on consent or direction violations." }, -+ { "id": "rea", "label": "Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA)", "summary": "Variant of equivalency analysis that scales restoration against a specific resource service (for example fisheries production or recreational use) rather than habitat area. Distinct from HEA; the choice of method is itself part of the expert argument.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800903002519", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use. Keep distinct from HEA in any filing. Positioned against the CPCB methodology and the Supreme Court's compensation cases as in the hea entry." } - ] - } diff --git a/catalog/provisions.json b/catalog/provisions.json index a6a7a66..e6200a0 100644 --- a/catalog/provisions.json +++ b/catalog/provisions.json @@ -1,26 +1,33 @@ { "law_as_at": "2026-11-03", - "disclaimer": "Seed catalog for Aranya, not legal advice and not exhaustive. Items marked \"source_cited\" were checked against the cited primary source on 2026-11-03; items marked \"verify\" or \"unverified\" must still be confirmed against primary sources (Gazette of India, indiacode.nic.in, environmentclearance.nic.in, greentribunal.gov.in, the SCC/official reports) by a qualified person before use in any court-facing document.", + "disclaimer": "Seed catalog for Aranya, not legal advice and not exhaustive. Items marked \"source_cited\" were checked against the cited primary source on 2026-11-03, except entries added in the November 2026 source pack, whose notes give their own check date and the copy read; items marked \"verify\" or \"unverified\" must still be confirmed against primary sources (Gazette of India, indiacode.nic.in, environmentclearance.nic.in, greentribunal.gov.in, the SCC/official reports) by a qualified person before use in any court-facing document.", "instruments": [ { "id": "ngt-act-2010", "label": "National Green Tribunal Act, 2010", "citation": "Act 19 of 2010", "year": 2010, "in_force": true, "commencement": "18 October 2010", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Enacted 2 June 2010; in force 18 October 2010. Amended by the Finance Act 2017 and the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 (per the India Code consolidated text)." }, { "id": "epa-1986", "label": "Environment (Protection) Act, 1986", "citation": "Act 29 of 1986", "year": 1986, "in_force": true, "commencement": "19 November 1986", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/13656", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Enacted 23 May 1986. Parent statute for the EIA and CRZ notifications (s.3)." }, - { "id": "eia-notif-2006", "label": "Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006", "citation": "S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006, under EPA 1986", "year": 2006, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "The official MoEFCC listing opens with S.O. 1533(E) of 14 September 2006 and runs through amendments to S.O. 3372(E) of 26 July 2023. The draft EIA Notification 2020 (released 12 March 2020) was NOT notified and is not law; never cite the 2020 draft as operative. Re-check the listing for amendments after 2023." }, + { "id": "eia-notif-2006", "label": "Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006", "citation": "S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006, under EPA 1986", "year": 2006, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "The official MoEFCC listing opens with S.O. 1533(E) of 14 September 2006 and runs through amendments to S.O. 3372(E) of 26 July 2023; it still ended there on 2026-11-05. A Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation to March 2025 records later amendments, including S.O. 2115(E) of 7 June 2024, S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 (items 8(a)/8(b): see credai-gc-2025) and S.O. 1223(E) of 17 March 2025; these were not opened at the Gazette. The draft EIA Notification 2020 (released 12 March 2020) was NOT notified and is not law; never cite the 2020 draft as operative." }, { "id": "water-1974", "label": "Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974", "citation": "Act 6 of 1974", "year": 1974, "in_force": true, "commencement": "23 March 1974", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15429", "verification": "source_cited" }, { "id": "air-1981", "label": "Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981", "citation": "Act 14 of 1981", "year": 1981, "in_force": true, "commencement": "29 March 1981", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/9462", "verification": "source_cited" }, { "id": "forest-1980", "label": "Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980", "citation": "Act 69 of 1980", "year": 1980, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/19381", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Renamed Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 (reported in force 1 December 2023 - single secondary source; confirm the commencement notification)." }, { "id": "biodiv-2002", "label": "Biological Diversity Act, 2002", "citation": "Act 18 of 2003", "year": 2002, "in_force": true, "commencement": "assent 5 February 2003", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/21545", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Amended by the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act 2023 (assent 3 August 2023), brought into force 1 April 2024 by Gazette notification." }, { "id": "wildlife-1972", "label": "Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972", "citation": "Act 53 of 1972", "year": 1972, "in_force": true, "commencement": "9 September 1972", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/6198", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "NOT listed in NGT Schedule I: harm arising only under this Act may fall outside the NGT's jurisdiction. Confirmed against Schedule I of the NGT Act." }, - { "id": "crz-notif-2019", "label": "Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019", "citation": "G.S.R. 37(E), 18 January 2019, under EPA 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986", "year": 2019, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://www.keralaczma.gov.in/images/pdf/Notifications/CRZ%20Notification%202019%20with%20Amendments.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Correct citation is G.S.R. 37(E) of 18 January 2019 - NOT S.O. 114(E), which was the 1991 CRZ notification. Supersedes the 2011 notification (S.O. 19(E)). Amended by S.O. 4886(E) of 26 Nov 2021 and S.O. 5495(E) of 24 Nov 2022; check for later amendments against the Gazette." } + { "id": "crz-notif-2019", "label": "Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019", "citation": "G.S.R. 37(E), 18 January 2019, under EPA 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986", "year": 2019, "in_force": true, "source_url": "https://www.keralaczma.gov.in/images/pdf/Notifications/CRZ%20Notification%202019%20with%20Amendments.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Correct citation is G.S.R. 37(E) of 18 January 2019 - NOT S.O. 114(E), which was the 1991 CRZ notification. Supersedes the 2011 notification (S.O. 19(E)). Amended by S.O. 4886(E) of 26 Nov 2021 and S.O. 5495(E) of 24 Nov 2022; check for later amendments against the Gazette." }, + { "id": "cpcb-ec-2019", "label": "CPCB In-house Committee report: Methodology for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund", "citation": "Central Pollution Control Board, 2019 (date uncertain: see note)", "year": 2019, "summary": "Chapter I lists six instances: (a) discharges in violation of consent conditions; (b) non-compliance with directions; (c) intentional avoidance of data submission or tampering with online monitoring; (d) accidental discharges of short duration resulting in damage to the environment; (e) intentional discharges to land, water or air resulting in acute injury or damage; (f) injection of effluents into groundwater. For (a) to (c), EC = PI x N x R x S x LF: PI 80, 50 or 30 for red, orange or green sectors; N days of violation; R = Rs 250 (range 100 to 500); S 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 by scale; LF 1.0 to 2.0 by city population, 2.0 for notified ecologically sensitive areas; minimum Rs 5,000 a day; multipliers for repeated or continuing violation (1.3.1). For (d) to (f), compensation has an immediate-relief part and a long-term remediation part, decided on detailed investigation by expert institutions, with a remediation plan supervised by SPCB, CPCB and the experts (1.3.2, 1.5.2). Where EC is assessed on actual damage, the amount is remediation costs, immediate and short-term measures and compensation towards loss of ecology, used only at the specific site (1.4.2). The formula applies only where CPCB has issued directions under the EPA (1.5.1). EC is not a substitute for action under the EPA, Water or Air Acts (1.5.4). Chapters II to IV cover GRAP violations, sewage and solid waste, and illegal groundwater extraction.", "source_url": "https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/news_updates/Compliance%20Affidavit%20on%20behalf%20of%20R-1,%20with%20Report%20of%20the%20CPCB%20in%20house%20committee%20in%20E.A.No_.%2005-2021%20(page%20nos.%20241-287).pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 in the copy CPCB filed with the NGT (Western Zone) on 9 December 2021 in E.A. 05 of 2021 in O.A. 97 of 2019 (WZ), filing pp.245 to 254. The copy on cpcb.nic.in (uploads/report-15.07.2019.pdf) was unreachable: TLS certificate rejected. Official corroboration: the formula and clauses 1.5.1 to 1.5.4 are quoted in rhythm-county-2026 (paras 40, 41); the instances and notes match the December 2018 draft quoted in ngt-oa593-2019, which left LF for sensitive areas open and had no repeat multipliers. Date: Rhythm County (para 13.6) calls it the report dated 31.05.2019; secondary sources say 15 July 2019 and NGT acceptance on 28 August 2019; the acceptance order was not opened. Not statutory: 'facilitative and indicative, not prescriptive or exhaustive' (rhythm-county-2026, para 41). CPCB later issued a 'General framework for imposing environmental damage compensation' (December 2022), named in dpcc-lodhi-2025, para 35; not opened. For how REA/HEA sits against this, see hea." } ], "provisions": [ { "id": "ngt-s14", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.14", "label": "Tribunal to settle disputes", "summary": "Jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment arises and the question arises out of the implementation of the enactments in Schedule I. An application must be made within six months of the date on which the cause of action first arose, extendable by up to sixty days for sufficient cause.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Six-month limitation (plus up to 60 days) confirmed against the Act text." }, - { "id": "ngt-s15", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.15", "label": "Relief, compensation and restitution", "summary": "The Tribunal may order (a) relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the Schedule I enactments, (b) restitution of property damaged, and (c) restitution of the environment 'for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit'. This relief is in addition to any relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Clause (c), restitution of the environment, is the statutory hook for restoration-scaled claims. Quoted verbatim from the Act." }, + { "id": "ngt-s15", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.15", "label": "Relief, compensation and restitution", "summary": "The Tribunal may order (a) relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the Schedule I enactments, (b) restitution of property damaged, and (c) restitution of the environment 'for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit'. This relief is in addition to any relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Clause (c), restitution of the environment, is the statutory hook for restoration-scaled claims. Quoted verbatim from the Act. Limitation for a s.15 application is in s.15(3): five years from when the cause for compensation or relief first arose (ngt-s15-3). The six months in s.14(3) is written for applications under s.14 (ngt-s14). Which period governs a given claim is for counsel: see catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q2." }, + { "id": "ngt-s15-3", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.15(3)", "label": "Limitation for compensation, relief and restitution", "summary": "No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under s.15 shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose. Proviso: if satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause, the Tribunal may allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.", "source_url": "https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/National_Green_Tribunal_Act,_2010.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 from the page image of the Gazette of India text of Act 19 of 2010 (Gazette p.6) as hosted by the NGT. India Code (handle 2025) returned HTTP 403, so the consolidated text was not compared; confirm on India Code that no later amendment touches s.15(3). Contrast s.14(3): six months from when the cause of action for the dispute first arose (ngt-s14). How 'first arose' applies to continuing or recurring harm is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q2." }, + { "id": "ngt-s16", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.16", "label": "Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction", "summary": "Any person aggrieved by an order listed in clauses (a) to (j), made on or after the Act's commencement, may appeal to the Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him. Clause (h): an order granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the EPA 1986. Clause (i): an order refusing environmental clearance under the EPA 1986. The other clauses cover Water Act ss.28, 29 and 33A, Water Cess Act s.13, Forest (Conservation) Act s.2, Air Act s.31, EPA s.5 directions and Biological Diversity Act determinations. Proviso: a further period not exceeding sixty days for sufficient cause.", "source_url": "https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/National_Green_Tribunal_Act,_2010.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 from the page image of the Gazette text as hosted by the NGT (Gazette p.7). Consolidated text on India Code not compared (HTTP 403). Section 18(2), second proviso (Gazette p.8), bars a person who has preferred a s.16 appeal from applying under s.18(2) for relief, compensation or settlement of dispute; read it before advising on both routes. When an EC counts as 'communicated' to a third party is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q3." }, { "id": "ngt-s17", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.17", "label": "Liability to pay relief or compensation", "summary": "Where death, injury, or damage to property or the environment results from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity, operation or process under a Schedule I enactment, the responsible person is liable to pay relief or compensation under the heads in Schedule II as the Tribunal determines; the Tribunal may apportion liability where it cannot be attributed to a single person.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited" }, { "id": "ngt-s20", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "s.20", "label": "Tribunal to apply certain principles", "summary": "The Tribunal shall, while passing any order, decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Quoted from the Act text." }, { "id": "ngt-schedule-1", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "Schedule I", "label": "Scheduled enactments (seven)", "summary": "[See ss.14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2), 19(4)(j), 34(1)] The seven enactments: (1) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974; (2) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1977; (3) Forest (Conservation) Act 1980; (4) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981; (5) Environment (Protection) Act 1986; (6) Public Liability Insurance Act 1991; (7) Biological Diversity Act 2002.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Enumeration confirmed verbatim against the Act. The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 is not in Schedule I." }, - { "id": "ngt-schedule-2", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "Schedule II", "label": "Heads of compensation and relief", "summary": "[See ss.15(4) and 17(1)] Heads under which compensation or relief may be claimed, including death, disability, loss of wages, medical expenses, damage to private property, government relief expenses, and head (g): expenses incurred by the Government for administrative or legal action or to cope with harm or damage, 'including compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of the environment', plus losses to government and harm to fauna.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Head (g), covering restoration of the quality of the environment, is where a REA/HEA-scaled figure would sit. Quoted verbatim." }, + { "id": "ngt-schedule-2", "instrument_id": "ngt-act-2010", "section": "Schedule II", "label": "Heads of compensation and relief", "summary": "[See ss.15(4) and 17(1)] Heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be claimed: (a) Death; (b) Permanent, temporary, total or partial disability or other injury or sickness; (c) Loss of wages due to total or partial disability or permanent or temporary disability; (d) Medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries or sickness; (e) Damages to private property; (f) Expenses incurred by the Government or any local authority in providing relief, aid and rehabilitation to the affected persons; (g) Expenses incurred by the Government for any administrative or legal action or to cope with any harm or damage, including compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of environment; (h) Loss to the Government or local authority arising out of, or connected with, the activity causing any damage; (i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna; (j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards; (k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems; (l) Loss and destruction of any property other than private property; (m) Loss of business or employment or both; (n) Any other claim arising out of, or connected with, any activity of handling of hazardous substance.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "All fourteen heads quoted verbatim; re-read on 2026-11-08 against the Gazette text of Act 19 of 2010 as hosted by the NGT (Gazette p.16). The earlier summary of this entry omitted heads (i) to (n), including (k). Which head a restoration-scaled figure belongs under, (g) or (k) or both, and whether head (g) is open to a private applicant, is undecided: see catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q1. Do not plead either head as settled." }, { "id": "epa-s3", "instrument_id": "epa-1986", "section": "s.3", "label": "Power of Central Government to take measures", "summary": "The Central Government may take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient to protect and improve the quality of the environment (s.3(1)); s.3(2) enumerates specific powers and s.3(3) allows constitution of authorities. This is the source of authority for the EIA Notification 2006 and the CRZ Notification.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/13656", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "General power confirmed; read s.3(1)-(3) for the specific sub-clause relied on in a given matter." }, - { "id": "eia-2006-process", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 7", "label": "EC appraisal stages", "summary": "Paragraph 7 provides four stages for prior environmental clearance: (1) Screening (only for Category B, to decide B1/B2), (2) Scoping (Terms of Reference), (3) Public Consultation (public hearing plus written responses), and (4) Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Category A, MoEFCC) or State EAC (Category B, SEIAA), leading to grant or refusal with conditions. The stages are sequential and not all apply to every project.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Four-stage structure of para 7 confirmed. Separately verify: the Supreme Court in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025) is reported to have restricted post-facto environmental clearances; confirm before advising on ex post facto ECs." } + { "id": "eia-2006-process", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 7", "label": "EC appraisal stages", "summary": "Paragraph 7 provides four stages for prior environmental clearance: (1) Screening (only for Category B, to decide B1/B2), (2) Scoping (Terms of Reference), (3) Public Consultation (public hearing plus written responses), and (4) Appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Category A, MoEFCC) or State EAC (Category B, SEIAA), leading to grant or refusal with conditions. The stages are sequential and not all apply to every project.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Four-stage structure of para 7 confirmed. Ex post facto EC: Vanashakti-I (2025), which barred it, was recalled on review (credai-vanashakti-2025) and the matter was decided afresh in vanashakti-2026; read that entry before advising on post facto ECs. Obligations after grant sit in para 10 (eia-2006-para-10) and the EC's own conditions, not in para 7." }, + { "id": "eia-2006-gc", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "Schedule, Note: General Condition (GC)", "label": "General Condition: Category B appraised at the Central level", "summary": "Any project or activity specified in Category 'B' will be appraised at the Central level as Category 'A' if located in whole or in part within 5 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972; (ii) Critically polluted areas identified by the CPCB from time to time; (iii) Eco-sensitive areas notified under s.3(2) of the EPA 1986; (iv) inter-State and international boundaries. For river valley projects (item 1(c)), thermal power plants (1(d)), industrial estates, parks, EPZs, SEZs, biotech parks and leather complexes (7(c)) and common TSDFs (7(d)), appraisal is at the Central level even if located within 10 km. The inter-State boundary distance may be reduced or removed by agreement between the States or Union Territories if the activity is not within the distance of items (i) to (iii). The GC applies only to items whose column 5 says so; it does not apply to items 8(a) and 8(b).", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/15_SO1599_E_25062014.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Text as substituted by S.O. 1599(E) of 25 June 2014, read on 2026-11-05 in the Gazette copy on the MoEFCC listing (Gazette p.10). Earlier wording (S.O. 3067(E) of 1 December 2009) not checked; do not rely on a recollected 10 km rule for protected areas. Items 8(a)/8(b): S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 states General Conditions shall not apply; the Supreme Court upheld it on 5 August 2025 in W.P.(C) 166 of 2025, except Note 1 to entry 8(a), as recorded in credai-gc-2025. Neither S.O. 523(E) nor that order was opened. Amendments after March 2025 not checked." }, + { "id": "eia-2006-para-8-vi", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 8(vi)", "label": "Concealment or false information", "summary": "Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/1_SO1533E_14092006.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Read on 2026-11-08 from the page image of S.O. 1533(E) as listed by MoEFCC (Gazette p.42). The Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation to March 2025 shows the same words with no amendment footnote. Cancellation on this ground is for the regulatory authority after a hearing; whether the NGT may itself set an EC aside on this ground is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q4." }, + { "id": "eia-2006-appendix-iv", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "Appendix IV", "label": "Procedure for conduct of public hearing", "summary": "Public hearing at or near the site, district-wise, by the SPCB or UTPCC (1.0). The applicant sends at least 10 hard and equal soft copies of the draft EIA report, including the Summary EIA report in English and in the official language of the State/local language, and copies go to the District Magistrate, Zila Parishad or Municipal Corporation, District Industries Office, ULBs/PRIs and the MoEF Regional Office (2.2), which publicise it and make it available for inspection (2.3, 2.4). The Member-Secretary fixes date, time and venue within 7 days of receiving the draft EIA report and advertises in one major National Daily and one Regional vernacular Daily/Official State Language; a minimum notice period of 30 days is given for responses (3.1). Where newspapers do not reach, other means such as beating of drums, radio or television (3.2). No postponement unless an untoward emergency, on the District Magistrate recommendation (3.3); a rescheduled hearing is at least 45 days from the first advertisement, with at least 15 days of notice before the new date (3.3(a)).", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/4_SO3067E_01122009.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Appendix IV as substituted by S.O. 3067(E) of 1 December 2009 (paras 1.0 to 3.3 read on 2026-11-05 in the Gazette copy on the MoEFCC listing) and para 3.3(a) as inserted by S.O. 2163(E) of 9 May 2022 (read in its Gazette copy). Paras 4.0 to 7.1 (presiding officer, videography, minutes in the local language, completion in 45 days) and the proviso to 4.0 allowing a Sub-Divisional Magistrate were read only in the Tamil Nadu PCB consolidation and are not summarised here. Whether a defect in the hearing vitiates the EC is for counsel: catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q5." }, + { "id": "eia-2006-para-10", "instrument_id": "eia-notif-2006", "section": "para 10", "label": "Post environmental clearance monitoring", "summary": "(i) Category A: the project proponent makes the EC public with its conditions and safeguards by advertising it in at least two local newspapers and displaying it permanently on its website; Category B: the proponent advertises that EC has been accorded with details of the MoEF website where it is displayed; MoEF and SEIAAs place the EC on a Government portal; copies go to heads of local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal Bodies and relevant Government offices, which display them for 30 days from receipt. (ii) The project management must submit half-yearly compliance reports on the stipulated EC terms and conditions, in soft copy, to the regulatory authority on 1 June and 1 December of each calendar year. (iii) All such compliance reports are public documents; copies are given to any person on application, and the latest is displayed on the website of the regulatory authority.", "source_url": "https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_Notifications/4_SO3067E_01122009.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Assembled from Gazette texts read on 2026-11-05 and 2026-11-08: S.O. 1533(E), Gazette p.43 (original paras 10(i) and (ii)); S.O. 3067(E) of 1 December 2009, item IV (new sub-para (i), renumbering); S.O. 5845(E) of 26 November 2018 (hard and soft copies replaced by soft copy). The consolidation also shows DEIAAs added and a sub-para (iv) on sand mining by S.O. 141(E) of 15 January 2016, which it records as suspended by the NGT; neither checked at the Gazette. Para 10 governs publicity and compliance reporting; it does not itself state the consequence of breaching an EC condition. That turns on the terms of the EC and the EPA 1986 (s.15 as substituted by the Jan Vishwas Act 2023, not in this catalog)." } ], "doctrines": [ { "id": "polluter-pays", "label": "Polluter pays principle", "summary": "The polluter bears the cost of both compensation to victims and restoration of the degraded environment; part of Indian environmental law and expressly directed by NGT Act s.20.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Leading authorities: Vellore Citizens (1996) 5 SCC 647 and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996) 3 SCC 212." }, @@ -31,10 +38,21 @@ "cases": [ { "id": "vellore-1996", "label": "Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India", "citation": "(1996) 5 SCC 647", "principle": "Precautionary and polluter pays principles are part of Indian environmental law; sustainable development adopted.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 28 August 1996 (Kuldip Singh and K. Venkataswami JJ.); also AIR 1996 SC 2715. Concerned pollution of the river Palar by Vellore tanneries. Confirm pinpoints against the SCC report." }, { "id": "icela-1996", "label": "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India", "citation": "(1996) 3 SCC 212", "principle": "Absolute liability of an enterprise carrying on a hazardous activity; polluter pays for remediation of the affected area (Bichhri).", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818014/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 13 February 1996 (B.P. Jeevan Reddy J.); also AIR 1996 SC 1446. Confirm specific paragraph pinpoints against the SCC report before relying on them." }, - { "id": "mc-mehta-kamal-nath-1997", "label": "M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath", "citation": "(1997) 1 SCC 388", "principle": "Public trust doctrine is part of the law of India; the polluter must bear the cost of reversing the ecological damage caused.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1239689/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 13 December 1996 (Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ.); Span Motel on the river Beas. doc/1239689 is the Supreme Court's 2002 order in the same petition restating the 1997 holding; confirm paragraph pinpoints against (1997) 1 SCC 388." } + { "id": "mc-mehta-kamal-nath-1997", "label": "M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath", "citation": "(1997) 1 SCC 388", "principle": "Public trust doctrine is part of the law of India; the polluter must bear the cost of reversing the ecological damage caused.", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1239689/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Decided 13 December 1996 (Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ.); Span Motel on the river Beas. doc/1239689 is the Supreme Court's 2002 order in the same petition restating the 1997 holding; confirm paragraph pinpoints against (1997) 1 SCC 388." }, + { "id": "ngt-oa593-2019", "label": "Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (NGT order of 19 February 2019)", "citation": "NGT Principal Bench, O.A. No. 593/2017 (arising from W.P.(C) 375/2012), order dated 19.02.2019", "principle": "Recorded the December 2018 CPCB methodology for environmental compensation (PI x N x R x S x LF for consent and direction violations; detailed investigation by expert institutions for damage cases) and asked CPCB to also cover 'loss to ecological services due to illegal mining, due to deforestation or any other damage to the environment', taking inputs from bodies such as IEG, CSE, TERI and IIFM Bhopal (paras 6 to 9).", "source_url": "https://pcbassam.org/court%20cases/NGT/593_2017/NGT%20Order%20-19.2.2019%20compensation%20593_2017.pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Read on 2026-11-05 in the copy hosted by the Pollution Control Board, Assam, not on greentribunal.gov.in. Coram: Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chairperson), S.P. Wangdi, K. Ramakrishnan, Dr Nagin Nanda. The proceedings follow the Supreme Court order of 22 February 2017 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 326 (not opened). The later order said to accept the CPCB report (28 August 2019) was not opened." }, + { "id": "vanashakti-2025", "label": "Vanashakti v. Union of India (Vanashakti-I)", "citation": "2025 INSC 718, W.P.(C) 1394 of 2023, decided 16 May 2025 (Oka and Bhuyan JJ.)", "principle": "RECALLED on 18 November 2025 (credai-vanashakti-2025) and the matter decided afresh in vanashakti-2026. Not good law; do not cite for any proposition. It had struck down the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM on ex post facto EC and restrained the Centre from issuing any such instrument, leaving ECs already granted unaffected (paras 35, 36).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/50009/50009_2023_3_1502_61809_Judgement_16-May-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. Kept so that a run meeting this citation, or a brief describing it as restricting post facto clearances, resolves it to its current status." }, + { "id": "credai-vanashakti-2025", "label": "Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti (review)", "citation": "2025 INSC 1326, R.P.(C) Diary No. 41929 of 2025 in W.P.(C) 1394 of 2023, decided 18 November 2025 (Gavai CJI; Chandran J. concurring; Bhuyan J. dissenting)", "principle": "By 2:1 the review was allowed, Vanashakti-I recalled and the writ petitions and appeal restored to file (Gavai CJI, paras 141 to 143). Chandran J. concurred that review was warranted and did not decide the validity of the 2017 Notification. Bhuyan J. would have dismissed the review (para 58). The bench that reheard the matter held that the ratio of the review order goes no further than the two grounds of recall (vanashakti-2026, para 21).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41929/41929_2025_1_1501_66095_Judgement_18-Nov-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05: operative paragraphs, the opinion of Chandran J. and paras 55 to 58 of the dissent read directly; the reasoning of the lead opinion read in part and through the account in vanashakti-2026, paras 13 to 21. Superseded on the merits by vanashakti-2026; cite it only for the recall." }, + { "id": "vanashakti-2026", "label": "Vanashakti v. Union of India (rehearing after recall)", "citation": "2026 INSC 761, W.P.(C) 1394 of 2023 and connected matters, decided 29 July 2026 (Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi JJ.)", "principle": "The prior EC regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory and, unless amended by an appropriate notification, does not accommodate post facto EC or retention of projects begun without a valid EC. The Centre may issue a narrowly tailored, time-bound amnesty notification under EPA s.3 in supervening public interest; the 2017 Notification is valid on that footing. The 2021 OM, an administrative order creating a perpetual regime, is quashed with prospective effect. ECs already granted under either instrument stay valid unless individually challenged; pending applications go to their logical conclusion; no fresh applications; no future post facto EC by administrative order. The Article 142 power of the Court is unaffected. The reading in Electrosteel that the Act and Notification accommodate post facto EC is disapproved; Pahwa and D. Swamy are overruled so far as they treat the 2021 OM as valid (paras 79 to 81).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/50009/50009_2023_1_1501_72722_Judgement_29-Jul-2026.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05; operative part identical to the SCObserver copy also read. On compensation: an amnesty must subject violators to damage assessment, remediation and compensatory liability (paras 39, 54, 61 to 64); 'some environmental injuries cannot be compensated in money' (para 57); the 2017 Notification requires ecological damage assessment and remediation and resource augmentation plans by a laboratory notified under the EPA, accredited by NABL or belonging to a CSIR institution, with no cap on compensation (para 62); the 2021 OM had fixed compensation at 1% of project cost plus 0.25% of turnover in the violation period (para 67). An MoEFCC OM of 20 January 2026 (para 77) had directed pending applications to be processed subject to further orders; a later MoEFCC direction (reported October 2026) was not opened. No review of this judgment found as at 2026-11-08 (search only)." }, + { "id": "credai-gc-2025", "label": "CREDAI v. Union of India (General Conditions and items 8(a), 8(b))", "citation": "2025 INSC 1112, C.A. 10043 of 2024 with C.A. 5532 of 2025, decided 12 September 2025 (Pardiwala and Mahadevan JJ.)", "principle": "Disposed of appeals against the NGT order of 9 August 2024 (building and construction projects within 5 km of the GC areas to be treated as Category A) in the light of the coordinate bench order of 5 August 2025 in W.P.(C) 166 of 2025: the General Conditions were never attracted to items 8(a) and 8(b); S.O. 523(E) of 29 January 2025 and the OM of 30 January 2025 upheld except Note 1 to entry 8(a), which was quashed; SEIAA, an expert body, appraises such projects. The 2025 Notification, excluding Note 1 to entry 8(a), holds the field (paras 23 to 25).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/38099/38099_2024_8_1508_64231_Judgement_12-Sep-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. The 5 August 2025 order (listed on Indian Kanoon as Vanashakti v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 166 of 2025, Gavai CJI; a different matter from the post facto EC cases) was not read beyond its caption; its holding is taken from paras 22 to 24 here." }, + { "id": "rhythm-county-2026", "label": "M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde", "citation": "2026 INSC 102, C.A. 7187 of 2022 with C.A. 7974 of 2022 (Key Stone Properties), decided 30 January 2026 (Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi JJ.)", "principle": "NGT Act ss.15, 17 and 20 let the NGT quantify environmental compensation without a legislated formula (paras 19 to 25). Turnover or project cost may be a relevant yardstick where the facts warrant, but not a blunt instrument; compensation must be rational, proportionate and reasoned (paras 32, 39, 46.2). The 5% of project cost in goel-ganga-2018 is a general guide, not a ceiling (para 45). The CPCB methodology is facilitative and indicative, not prescriptive: its formula is confined to limited categories of violation arising from directions under the EPA, and other cases call for 'a detailed, site-specific and expert-driven assessment with emphasis on remediation and restitution' (paras 40, 41, 46.4). The NGT may still use the CPCB framework and expert committees if it applies its own mind (paras 42 to 44). Both NGT awards upheld.", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/30735/30735_2022_8_1501_67798_Judgement_30-Jan-2026.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. Reads Benzo Chem Industrial (P) Ltd. v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan (C.A. 9202-9203 of 2022) and cl-gupta-2025 as turning on conjecture, lack of notice and lack of nexus, not a bar on turnover (paras 35 to 38). Relies on Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 6 SCC 402, para 6, and Research Foundation for Science (18) v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186, para 30, both quoted, not opened. The Keystone figure was the CPCB formula, 50 x 1909 x 250 x 1.5 x 1.25 (para 43)." }, + { "id": "cl-gupta-2025", "label": "M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. v. Adil Ansari", "citation": "2025 INSC 1035, C.A. 2864 of 2022, decided 22 August 2025 (Gavai CJI and K. Vinod Chandran J.)", "principle": "Set aside the Rs 50 crore compensation the NGT fixed on turnover, for want of nexus between turnover and the pollution alleged; if the NGT thought the EC imposed too low it 'could have referred to the methodology framed by the CPCB and not merely looked at the revenue generation of the alleged polluter' (para 11). The audit, monitoring and restoration directions of the NGT stand (paras 9, 13). The NGT cannot direct prosecution under the PMLA (para 12).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/10809/10809_2022_10_1501_63545_Judgement_22-Aug-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05. Read down by rhythm-county-2026 (paras 37, 38) as not barring turnover as a factor." }, + { "id": "dpcc-lodhi-2025", "label": "Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.", "citation": "2025 INSC 923, C.A. 757-760 of 2013 with C.A. 1977-2011 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025 (P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra JJ.)", "principle": "Pollution Control Boards may impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages as fixed sums, or require bank guarantees as an ex ante measure, under Water Act s.33A and Air Act s.31A (para 39(b)), on a determination that environmental damage has been caused or is imminent (para 30). Rules and regulations must set out the methods by which damage is determined and quantum assessed, with natural justice; the CPCB document 'General framework for imposing environmental damage compensation' (December 2022) should be reviewed and issued as rules (para 35). The power is to be enforced only after such subordinate legislation (para 39(c)); see dpcc-lodhi-2026-order.", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/40604/40604_2012_6_1501_62921_Judgement_04-Aug-2025.pdf", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "Official PDF read on 2026-11-05 (paras 35 to 39 directly; para 30 as quoted in the NGT order cited in dpcc-lodhi-2026-order). Concerns Boards under the Water and Air Acts, not the NGT under NGT Act ss.15 and 17; rhythm-county-2026 records it only as argued (para 13.13)." }, + { "id": "dpcc-lodhi-2026-order", "label": "Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (clarifying order)", "citation": "Supreme Court order dated 21 May 2026 in C.A. 757-760 of 2013", "principle": "As quoted: the 4 August 2025 directions 'should not be understood to mean that the regulators, being the Pollution Control Boards cannot proceed to impose and collect the compensatory environmental damages in the absence of subordinate legislation, on the subject' (para 2).", "source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29536194/", "verification": "unverified", "note": "Not opened at source. Read only as quoted in the NGT order of 27 August 2026 in O.A. 1025 of 2024, Surender Singh Parihar v. State of U.P., paras 81 to 84, on Indian Kanoon. A press report of 21 May 2026 describes the Supreme Court as saying Boards cannot levy compensation without rules, the opposite of the quoted text. Pull the order from sci.gov.in before relying on either." }, + { "id": "amravati-2026", "label": "Amravati Municipal Corporation v. Ganesh Dadarao Anasane", "citation": "2026 INSC 796, C.A. 4020 of 2020 with C.A. 8630 of 2022, judgment of 4 August 2026 (P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe JJ.)", "principle": "Directing MoEFCC to frame environmental compensation guidelines under Rule 17(2) of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2026, the Court stated eight principles (para 17): compensation is restitutionary and additional to penalty; liability lasts until the damage is reversed; authorities must value the damage and collect what restoration requires; tangible and intangible damage both count; imminent or potential harm suffices; the capacity of the polluter, the cost of assessment, the loss to individuals and the environment and the cost of remediation or restoration are factors; compensation must be proportional with a rational nexus to the pollution; courts and tribunals must record reasons, listing the factors considered, the valuation standard used and the formula or guidelines applied.", "source_url": "https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/05/amaravati-municipal-corporation-v-ganesh-dadarao-1782037.pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Read on 2026-11-05 in a Verdictum-hosted copy of the judgment; the sci.gov.in copy was not found. The principles are stated for guidelines under the SWM Rules; whether they bind NGT quantification under ss.15 and 17 is for counsel. Listed again on 29 September 2026; later orders not checked." }, + { "id": "goel-ganga-2018", "label": "Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India", "citation": "(2018) 18 SCC 257", "principle": "For an intransigent violator the Court fixed damages at Rs 100 crore or 10% of project cost, whichever is more, after observing that it 'has in a number of cases awarded 5% of the project cost as damages. This is the general law' (para 64, as quoted).", "source_url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/30735/30735_2022_8_1501_67798_Judgement_30-Jan-2026.pdf", "verification": "verify", "note": "Not opened. Para 64 read only as quoted in rhythm-county-2026, para 28 (the source_url), which treats 5% as a general guide, not a ceiling (para 45). Confirm the paragraph against the SCC report." } ], "methodologies": [ - { "id": "hea", "label": "Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA)", "summary": "Sizes compensatory restoration by equating the discounted flow of habitat services lost through injury with the discounted service gains of a restoration project (discounted service-acre-years). Used in U.S. natural resource damage assessment under CERCLA/OPA.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7007898/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use. Present only as a persuasive comparative methodology via foreign-authority-handler; the restoration-cost output sits under NGT s.15/s.17 and Schedule II head (g), which is a novel argument in India." }, - { "id": "rea", "label": "Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA)", "summary": "Variant of equivalency analysis that scales restoration against a specific resource service (for example fisheries production or recreational use) rather than habitat area. Distinct from HEA; the choice of method is itself part of the expert argument.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800903002519", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use. Keep distinct from HEA in any filing." } + { "id": "hea", "label": "Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA)", "summary": "Sizes compensatory restoration by equating the discounted flow of habitat services lost through injury with the discounted service gains of a restoration project (discounted service-acre-years). Used in U.S. natural resource damage assessment under CERCLA/OPA.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7007898/", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use found (searches to 2026-11-08; a negative search, not proof of absence). Present only as a persuasive comparative methodology via foreign-authority-handler. Statutory hook: s.15(1)(c) and s.17, with a Schedule II head that counsel must choose, (g) or (k) (catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/QUESTIONS-FOR-COUNSEL.md, Q1). The Indian slot for it is the damage track of the CPCB methodology: where compensation is decided on detailed investigation by expert institutions, the amount is remediation costs, immediate and short-term measures and 'compensation towards loss of ecology', used at the specific site (cpcb-ec-2019, clauses 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.5.2). The Supreme Court reads that track as 'a detailed, site-specific and expert-driven assessment with emphasis on remediation and restitution' (rhythm-county-2026, para 46.4), and courts must record the valuation standard and formula used (amravati-2026, para 17(VIII)). REA/HEA sizes restoration only; it does not measure deterrence, gain or the scale of the enterprise, which the courts also weigh (rhythm-county-2026, goel-ganga-2018). Present it as the expert assessment on the damage track, never as a replacement for the CPCB formula on consent or direction violations." }, + { "id": "rea", "label": "Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA)", "summary": "Variant of equivalency analysis that scales restoration against a specific resource service (for example fisheries production or recreational use) rather than habitat area. Distinct from HEA; the choice of method is itself part of the expert argument.", "methodology_status": "novel_persuasive", "source_url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800903002519", "verification": "source_cited", "note": "No documented NGT or Indian court use. Keep distinct from HEA in any filing. Positioned against the CPCB methodology and the Supreme Court's compensation cases as in the hea entry." } ] } diff --git a/docs/METHODOLOGY.md b/docs/METHODOLOGY.md index 78500b9..7b731fc 100644 --- a/docs/METHODOLOGY.md +++ b/docs/METHODOLOGY.md @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ This is asserted exactly in `.claude/scripts/tests/hea-rea.test.mjs`. ## Legal status in India -REA/HEA has **no documented NGT or Indian precedent**. It is offered as persuasive comparative methodology to quantify the restoration the NGT may already order under NGT Act s.15(1)(c) (restitution of the environment), s.17, and Schedule II head (g) (restoration of the quality of the environment), applying the polluter pays principle (s.20). Every result is `methodology_status: novel_persuasive` and `validation_status: pending_expert_review` until a named ecological expert validates the inputs. The output is expert-witness input material, never a final compensation figure, and never legal advice. +REA/HEA has **no documented NGT or Indian precedent**. It is offered as persuasive comparative methodology to quantify the restoration the NGT may already order under NGT Act s.15(1)(c) (restitution of the environment), s.17, and Schedule II, whose heads (g) and (k) both cover restoration, applying the polluter pays principle (s.20). Every result is `methodology_status: novel_persuasive` and `validation_status: pending_expert_review` until a named ecological expert validates the inputs. The output is expert-witness input material, never a final compensation figure, and never legal advice. ## Provenance diff --git a/docs/handoff-rea-hea-note.md b/docs/handoff-rea-hea-note.md index ffb88ad..cdaa6c0 100644 --- a/docs/handoff-rea-hea-note.md +++ b/docs/handoff-rea-hea-note.md @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@ # Handoff brief: a short note on REA/HEA in environmental adjudication in India -> **Out of date in two places.** This brief treats Schedule II head (g) as the head, and its *Vanashakti* line predates the November 2025 recall. Read the [November 2026 source pack](../catalog/patches/2026-11-source-pack/README.md) and its questions for counsel before using it. - Give this file to Claude (with the repository attached) and ask it to write the note. This is a brief, not the note itself. ## The task @@ -21,9 +19,10 @@ Indian environmental adjudication already holds the statutory power to order res - **s.15(1)(c)** NGT Act 2010: the Tribunal may order "restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit." This is the restoration hook. - **s.17**: liability to pay relief or compensation under the Schedule II heads for harm from a Schedule I enactment; the Tribunal may apportion. -- **Schedule II head (g)**: "compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of the environment" — the express head a restoration-scaled figure sits under. +- **Schedule II heads (g) and (k)**: (g) covers Government expenses "including compensation for environmental degradation and restoration of the quality of environment"; (k) covers "claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment". The note should say which head, or both, a restoration-scaled figure belongs under, and why. - **s.20**: the Tribunal shall apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. - **s.14**: jurisdiction over a substantial environmental question arising from a Schedule I enactment; six-month limitation (plus up to 60 days). Note the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 is not in Schedule I. +- **s.15(3)**: an application for compensation or restitution has five years from when the cause first arose (plus up to 60 days). Source: India Code handle 123456789/2025. Schedule I is the seven Acts, including the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991. @@ -41,10 +40,10 @@ Source: India Code handle 123456789/2025. Schedule I is the seven Acts, includin ## Suggested structure -1. The gap: the NGT awards environmental compensation, but quantum reasoning is often ad hoc. Give one or two verifiable examples if you can find them; do not invent orders. -2. The power already exists: s.15(1)(c), s.17, Schedule II head (g), s.20, and polluter pays. +1. The gap: the CPCB formula prices consent and direction breaches, while actual damage goes to an expert, site-specific assessment with no standard method (catalog `cpcb-ec-2019`, `rhythm-county-2026`). Give one or two verifiable examples; do not invent orders. +2. The power already exists: s.15(1)(c), s.17, Schedule II heads (g) and (k), s.20, and polluter pays. 3. What REA/HEA is, in plain terms, and why a transparent, auditable method suits an adversarial forum. -4. The mapping onto Indian law: restoration-scaling as restitution of the environment; discounting and service metrics as the quantum method; where the tool's debit/credit sits under head (g). +4. The mapping onto Indian law: restoration-scaling as restitution of the environment; discounting and service metrics as the quantum method; where the tool's debit/credit sits under Schedule II. 5. The honest limits: no Indian precedent; US-origin assumptions need translation; the service-loss fraction is contested expert judgment; data scarcity; the method sizes restoration, not a windfall. 6. A modest proposal: use it as persuasive expert evidence, with the sensitivity range and an ecologist's validation, not as a black-box number. @@ -53,7 +52,7 @@ Source: India Code handle 123456789/2025. Schedule I is the seven Acts, includin - No documented NGT or Indian court has applied REA/HEA. Present it as persuasive comparative methodology, never as settled law. - Foreign origin: frame through the persuasive-authority rules, and name the statutory and ecological differences that limit transplantation. - The figures depend on expert inputs; always a range, expert-validated. The tool's output is expert-witness input material, not the compensation figure. -- Currency to confirm before publishing: *Vanashakti v. Union of India* (2025), reported to restrict post-facto environmental clearances; the Forest (Conservation) 2023 rename; and every case pinpoint against the SCC report. +- Currency: cite *Vanashakti* 2026 INSC 761 (29 July 2026), not the 2025 judgment, which was recalled on review (2025 INSC 1326). Also reflect the Forest (Conservation) 2023 rename, and give every case pinpoint from the SCC report. ## Do and don't diff --git a/matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json b/matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json index 5de4b31..4904e1f 100644 --- a/matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json +++ b/matters/sample-estuary/findings/F-0001.json @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ { "finding_id": "F-0001", - "summary": "The NGT can order restitution of the environment and the cost of restoration for the degraded estuarine wetland; a restoration-scaled quantum sits under Schedule II head (g).", + "summary": "The NGT can order restitution of the environment and the cost of restoration for the degraded estuarine wetland; restoration is a head of claim under Schedule II.", "instrument": "National Green Tribunal Act, 2010", - "provision": "s.15(1)(c); Schedule II head (g)", + "provision": "s.15(1)(c); Schedule II", "severity": "high", "recommendation": "Plead restitution of the environment under s.15(1)(c) and quantify the restoration cost with the REA/HEA calculator, presented as expert-witness input with its sensitivity range and an ecologist's validation.", "source_url": "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2025", diff --git a/package.json b/package.json index 29e8032..6b8e475 100644 --- a/package.json +++ b/package.json @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "name": "aranya", - "version": "0.2.0", + "version": "0.3.0", "private": true, "description": "Open-source Indian environmental-law workspace agent: case analysis, EIA review and restoration-scaled damage (REA/HEA) arguments as Claude Code skills", "license": "Apache-2.0",