Environment Law Monthly Updates – September 2025

On 4 September 2025, the MoEF&CC notified the Environment (Protection) Seventh Amendment Rules, 2025, aimed at consolidating the environmental norms and standards applicable to all pulp and paper industries, excluding rayon grade pulp industries. These standards, now delineated by categories, are provided under a revised Entry 14 of Schedule I of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Accordingly, the previous entries 29, 53 and 54 under the Schedule have been omitted.

The amendment imposes comprehensive standards for treated effluents generated by pulp and paper mills that manufacture products from chemical pulp as well as recycled fibre, and market pulp. It also prescribes specific limits for freshwater consumption, effluent discharge, and emissions, including both odorous and stack emissions. Obligated industries must achieve compliance with the prescribed parameters within a period of two years from the date the amendment comes into force.

Following the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee and the Expert Advisory Committee, the MoEF&CC issued a draft notification on 26 September 2025 proposing an amendment to Item 3(b), Column 5 of the EIA Notification. The amendment seeks to exempt standalone cement grinding units, which transport raw materials and finished products exclusively through the railways and/or e-vehicles, from the requirement to obtain prior EC under the EIA Notification. The draft notification invites objections and suggestions from public stakeholders, who may submit their comments in writing to the Secretary, MoEF&CC or by email to diriapolicy-moefcc@gov.in. The proposal, along with any objections thereto, will be considered finally within 60 days of its issuance.

Following the NGT’s directions in its order of 28 November 2019, the CPCB has introduced draft guidelines for charcoal manufacturers aimed at promoting cleaner charcoal production.¹

The guidelines provide a detailed overview of traditional charcoal manufacturing techniques, highlighting the associated environmental concerns. To address these issues, the guidelines recommend process changes for earth mound, elevated, and rotary kilns to improve ventilation, emission control, monitoring and heat reutilisation. The guidelines also recommend housekeeping practices for the storage and collection of ash and dust generated during charcoal production, as well as responsible raw material sourcing.

On 3 September 2025, the CPCB notified guidelines for the utilisation of slurry generated from marble and granite processing units to curb the unregulated dumping of slurry on land and low-lying areas.² These guidelines were formulated following an order of the NGT, which raised concerns over the unscientific dumping of marble slurry on agricultural land.

The guidelines aim to address the environmental risks posed by improper management of marble and granite slurry, which leads to contamination of surface water, groundwater, soil, and ambient air.

Key obligations under the guidelines include:

On 23 September 2025, the CPCB, exercising its powers under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act), and Section 17 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act), issued directions requiring all industries that have installed or are required to install OCEMS to register on the newly launched OCEMS portal to ensure connectivity with the CPCB.³ Obligated industries must register before the expiry of the following deadlines:

As part of the registration process, industries and common facilities must provide key details, including location coordinates, industry category, and station and analyser information, as per the procedure provided on the portal.⁴

On 8 September 2025, the CPCB released detailed guidelines relating to silica sand mining and washing plants in compliance with the NGT’s directions dated 29 November 2024.⁵ The NGT had directed the CPCB to frame guidelines for statutory regulators to follow when granting environmental permits and licenses, including CTOs under the Air Act and Water Act.

The guidelines identify key concerns stemming from silica sand mining and washing activities, including:

The guidelines prescribe various measures, such as dust and fugitive emissions control systems, soil management practices, siting restrictions that limit mining activities to areas above the groundwater table, reutilisation of rejected materials, and appropriate ventilation of emission sources, which may be implemented to mitigate the above impacts.

On 2 September 2025, the Environment, Forest and Wildlife Department of the government of Haryana issued a notification revising the siting criteria and pollution norms for stone crushers.⁶

The updated directions modify the previously notified siting distances and provide additional guidance on establishing new stone crushing units, including the installation of suitable pollution control measures, the construction of RCC cement concrete roads within approved crusher zones, and the procurement of raw materials. The notification mandates that all crusher zones be identified and approved by the Mining and Geology Department, after concurrence from all concerned departments and the Haryana State Pollution Control Board.

On 3 September 2025, the DPCC issued an office order reducing the compliance burden for construction and demolition projects in relation to self-assessment and reporting obligations on the DPCC’s Dust Portal.⁷

Under the revised framework, project proponents are now required to report only 12 key parameters, focused on pollution control measures and containment of construction and demolition materials and sites, through a ‘Modified Self-Assessment Audit Sheet’ appended to the office order. This is a significant reduction from the earlier requirement of 27 parameters, streamlining the reporting process for developers and contractors.

On 16 September 2025, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued a circular aimed at enhancing ease of doing business and expediting the processing of applications for Consents to Establish (CTE) and CTOs.⁸

The circular introduces a self-certification mechanism for the fresh issuance of CTOs and CTEs to eligible industries as per the following thresholds for capital investment:

Self-certification-based renewal of CTE and CTO is permitted for all industries falling within the Orange and Green categorisation, regardless of capital investment, provided no litigation or complaints are pending against the applicant.

This move is expected to reduce procedural delays and streamline the regulatory approvals process.

On 1 September 2025, the Supreme Court, in M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., set aside the NGT’s orders imposing environmental compensation of INR 18 crore for alleged illegal discharge of untreated effluents, due to non-compliance with proper procedure.⁹

The NGT had imposed the compensation based on a joint committee’s report without impleading the subject industry, Triveni Engineering, or granting it any opportunity to contest the findings. The Court noted that the report was silent on the aspect of compliance with the sample collection procedures prescribed in Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act. Non-compliance with this procedure renders the evidence inadmissible in legal proceedings, as per Section 21(2).

Emphasising the importance of the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure, the Supreme Court held that the NGT cannot delegate its investigative and adjudicatory functions to administrative committees or bypass legal safeguards. The Court reinforced the need to adhere to the procedure for investigation prescribed under the Water Act, as well as compliance with the principles of natural justice. Given the procedural lapses, the Court declared the NGT orders illegal.

Ordinarily, matters involving the violation of principles of natural justice are remanded to the adjudicatory forum for fresh consideration in accordance with due process. However, in this case, the Supreme Court held that the entire exercise stood vitiated and refused to remand the matter to the NGT, as that would serve no useful purpose, and allowed the civil appeals. Separately, the Court granted liberty to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to inspect and take remedial action against the appellant, in accordance with applicable law.

On 16 September 2025, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court heard a review petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI), challenging the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Vanashakti v Union of India¹⁰ (Judgment in Review) and issued notice. The Judgment in Review, delivered by the Division Bench of the Court, had struck down the MoEF&CC’s notification number 804 (E) dated 14 March 2017 (2017 Notification) and Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2021 (2021 OM), which dealt with the treatment of projects that had commenced without obtaining prior EC, as required under the EIA Notification. (To read our earlier update on the Judgment in Review, click here.)

The review petition was heard at length on 7 and 9 October 2025, alongside a batch of miscellaneous applications seeking appropriate orders in respect of the Judgment in Review.

The review petitioners argued that the Judgment in Review suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, on the ground that it failed to appreciate that the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM were issued to provide a procedure to make ‘violation’ projects compliant with applicable environmental law, rather than leaving them unregulated. It was argued that the 2021 OM was enacted in exercise of valid legislative powers conferred on the central government under Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which could not be prohibited by the Court. It was also submitted that the Court had failed to appreciate the judgments passed by it in Electrosteel Steels Limited v Union of India and Ors., D. Swamy v Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Ors., and Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v Dastak NGO and Ors., which permitted the grant of ex-post facto ECs.

It was also emphasised that over 1300 applications filed pursuant to the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM seeking EC as ‘violation’ cases are currently pending. It was argued that the demolition of these projects could itself lead to significant environmental impact.

On 16 September 2025, the NGT, Western Zone Bench, ordered the demolition of a concrete promenade constructed by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (Board) on Aksa Beach in Mumbai, finding it to be in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 (CRZ Notification). ¹¹

The case arose from complaints that the Board had excavated and concretised a large portion of the beach, creating a concrete road and cement wall on the seaward side, flanked by boulders, allegedly forming a ‘gabion wall’. The construction was sought to be justified as an anti-erosion measure due to Aksa Beach’s alleged status as an eroding site, and had been undertaken pursuant to the grant of Coastal Regulation Zone clearance (CRZ Clearance). The applicant argued that the construction would exacerbate coastal erosion and that the effectiveness of the Board’s purported anti-erosion measure was unsubstantiated. Additionally, the construction was prohibited under the CRZ Notification.

The NGT observed that in terms of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and the CRZ Clearance granted to the project, the Board was only permitted to construct an anti-sea erosion bund, beyond which, no permanent construction could have been erected at the site, which falls within the CRZ area. Accordingly, the NGT, while noting that the construction of the promenade exceeded the authority conferred on the Board by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, directed its removal within two months.