Environment Law Monthly Updates –November 2025

On 25 November 2025, the CPCB mandated the use of CSIR-NPL-certified OCEMS for all air-polluting industries in NCR.¹ Only certified OCEMS equipment devices will be permitted to connect with the CPCB’s online server for real-time reporting of air quality. This move follows the CPCB’s earlier directions and ongoing attempts to standardise air quality monitoring.

A list of 21 certified OCEMS models has been published and will be updated periodically. The list can be accessed here.

On 12 November 2025, the HSPCB issued a detailed procedure for granting fresh CTOs to industries falling under the ‘Green’ category.² Under this new process, effective for applications filed on or after 15 November 2025, Green category units can obtain their first CTO based on third-party inspection and audit reports or self-certification. This change aligns with the CPCB’s industrial categorisation framework of 2025 and follows recommendations to simplify compliance for low-risk industries. (To read our earlier update on HSPCB’s initiatives to promote ease of doing business in the State through deregulation, click here.)

The key aspects of the procedure are as under.

Thus, while simplifying the procedure to make it less cumbersome, the HSPCB has retained the power to conduct inspections when necessary, ensuring that the relaxation does not compromise environmental safeguards.

On 19 November 2025, the KSPCB revised its siting criteria for carpentry and furniture manufacturing units.³ The Board has revoked the earlier distance norms applicable to units working with medium-density fibreboard (MDF), particle board, novopan, plywood, and other engineered wood materials. Instead, all ‘Carpentry and wood furniture manufacturing units with spray painting (excluding sawmill) with the help of electrical/electronic machines such as electrical wood planer, band saw, cutting circular saw, etc.,’ are required to follow the general distance norms for the ‘Green’ category pursuant to the CPCB’s revised classification of industrial sectors.

On the same date, the KSPCB also issued a circular easing STP effluent discharge norms, modifying pollutant tolerance limits across various parameters, including pH value, Bio-Chemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, and concentrations of Nitrogen and Phosphorus.⁴ This circular follows requests for leniency and phased implementation of previously notified discharge norms. Units must ensure full compliance with the circular within six months of its issuance.

Separately, on 29 November 2025, the KSPCB tightened environmental norms for M Sand, rock dust and rock sand godowns. These facilities must now maintain a 25-meter buffer from residential areas and institutions, including schools, colleges, courts, public offices, hospitals, places of worship and community halls, to address recurring dust and noise pollution complaints.⁵ All such godowns, irrespective of their storage capacities, are now required to obtain prior CTO under the Green category and implement the prescribed pollution control measures.

On 17 November 2025, the Supreme Court, building on its judgment of 6 March 2024, passed a judgment on the statutory and regulatory framework concerning the establishment of safaris in tiger reserves, directing the constitution of an expert committee to conduct a detailed inquiry and recommend standards regarding the establishment of such safaris.⁶ The committee was tasked with evaluating restoration needs, governance and operational protocols, and measures to mitigate ecological damage. While the Court’s earlier order did not restrict existing safaris or halt those already under construction at Pakhrau, it had instructed the State of Uttarakhand to relocate or set up a rescue centre in the area.

The committee’s report highlighted that 118.19 hectares of the Corbett Tiger Reserve had suffered ecological damage. In response, the Court issued several directions, including to the State of Uttarakhand, through the Chief Wildlife Warden, and in consultation with the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), such as:

The Court further prohibited tiger safaris in core or critical tiger habitats, permitting them only on non-forest or degraded land in buffer zones, outside tiger corridors, and only when integrated with a fully equipped rescue and rehabilitation centre for housing conflicted, injured or abandoned animals. It also permitted the formulation of additional guidelines to supplement the 2019 Guidelines by the National Tiger Conservation Authority of India for tiger safaris.

The Court additionally directed all State Governments to notify Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) around all tiger reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, within one year, in accordance with the safeguards notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 9 February 2011. It clarified that such ESZ restrictions include a complete ban on mining activities within 1 km of tiger habitats. State Governments were directed to consider prohibiting or regulating other activities, such as industries causing environmental pollution, commercial mining projects, and sawmills.

On 18 November 2025, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, allowed the review petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI), recalling its earlier ruling in the matter of Vanashakti v Union of India (judgment under review or JUR).⁷ The JUR had struck down the MoEF&CC’s notification dated 14 March 2017 (2017 Notification) and Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2021 (2021 OM), which prescribed the procedure for granting ex post facto ECs.⁸ The JUR had also restrained the Central Government from issuing any further directions permitting ex post facto ECs or regularising violations of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006.

In its assenting opinion, the Court held that the JUR was per incuriam, having overlooked precedents that upheld the validity of both the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM.

The Court further observed that the JUR led to impractical and inequitable outcomes, forcing even otherwise lawful projects lacking ECs to demolish and rebuild, contrary to public interest. It also created an inconsistency. While ECs granted before the JUR were left undisturbed, projects whose EC applications were pending or nearly approved but stalled due to the Court’s interim order of 2 January 2024 would have been required to face demolition. In light of these findings, the Supreme Court recalled the JUR in its entirety and restored the original writ petitions filed in the Vanashatki matter to the Court’s docket for fresh consideration.

On 19 November 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) dismissal of an appeal challenging the EC granted to a limestone mine in Gujarat.⁹ The appellant had approached the NGT under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (Act), accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, claiming that the EC came to its knowledge only upon receiving a response to its Right to Information application. The NGT refused to condone the delay, noting that the appeal was filed after the maximum permissible 90-day limitation period prescribed under the Act.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the structure of Section 16(h), identifying two key components:

The Court held that ‘communication’ is complete when the ‘person aggrieved’ first receives clear and complete information. In this case, since the EC, granted on 5 January 2017, was uploaded on the MoEF&CC’s website the same day and simultaneously advertised across local newspapers, the limitation period began from the date of upload. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal before the NGT was rightly dismissed as time-barred.

The Court also clarified that a project proponent is not legally required to publish the entire EC, but only information regarding the grant of EC and the conditions imposed, when advertising such grant.

On 20 November 2025, the Supreme Court issued a judgment suspending all further mining activities in the Aravali Hills and Ranges (Aravalis), including the grant of new mining leases, until the MoEF&CC prepares a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the region.¹⁰

The Court had earlier noted that inconsistencies in how different States defined the ‘Aravali Hills’ and ‘Aravali Ranges’ had contributed to illegal mining, prompting the constitution of a committee to standardise the definitions.

In its ruling, the Court referred to its Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary decision,¹¹ where the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) had conducted a detailed study at the MoEF&CC’s instance and developed an MPSM for the Saranda and Chaibasa regions in Jharkhand. The ICFRE’s geo-referenced ecological assessment enabled it to identify areas suitable for mining, zones requiring strict protection, and regions to be prioritised for conservation based on biodiversity value.

Observing the Aravalis’ ecological fragility and role as a green barrier preventing the natural desertification of the Indo-Gangetic plains in Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, the Court accepted the committee’s report, including the definitions proposed by it, and directed that a similar study be conducted for the Aravalis. The Court further noted that an MPSM may also earmark zones for sustainable mining in the Aravalis.