What were the core questions before the Court?

(1) Whether the public hearing met EIA 2006 requirements, and (2) whether the PIL filed by Samarth Trust was bona fide.

What standard did the Court apply?

Procedural Fairness: public actions must be transparent, fair, and aligned with public interest, ensuring people can access information and be heard.

What did the Court finally hold?

It laid down broad procedural steps for meaningful public hearings, stressed adequate notice and publicity, and dismissed the writ with costs of ₹25,000 to Aqua.

Why is notice and publicity important in EIA hearings?

Without timely notice and easy access to information, affected people cannot offer informed comments; hearings would be a formality, not participation.

Did disruptions invalidate the process automatically?

No. The Court focused on designing robust procedures to manage hearings so that genuine participation is protected even if some attempt disruption.

Samarth Trust v. Union of India Delhi High Court

Samarth Trust v. Union of India

Delhi High Court • 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2127 • India

Environmental Law Procedural Fairness Delhi HC 2010 ~6 min read SCC OnLine Del 2127

```

Quick Summary

An asbestos project in Haridwar required prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 14 Sept 2006. A public hearing was held. A small group disrupted the event. The case asked: was the hearing compliant, and was the PIL bona fide? The Delhi High Court used Procedural Fairness to set practical steps for meaningful hearings, stressed publicity and access to information, and dismissed the writ with costs.

Issues

Did the public hearing satisfy the EIA Notification, 14 September 2006?
Was the writ a genuine Public Interest Litigation?

Rules

Procedural Fairness: Public authorities must act transparently and fairly, enabling informed participation that serves the public interest.
EIA 2006 Public Consultation: (a) Public hearing near the site for local concerns; (b) Written responses from any concerned stakeholders.

Facts (Timeline)

Haridwar, India

Timeline graphic for Samarth Trust v. Union of India

14 Sept 2006: EIA Notification requires prior clearance for listed projects.

Project: Proposal to set up an asbestos-based plant at Haridwar.

Hearing: Public hearing conducted per EIA rules; written responses also contemplated.

Disruption: A small group caused chaos; intent appeared to disrupt, not participate.

Litigation: Questions arose about compliance and the bona fides of the PIL.

Arguments

Petitioner (Samarth Trust)

Public hearing failed to meet EIA 2006 standards.
Locals lacked access to full, timely information.
Process was not genuinely participatory.

Respondents (Union/MoEF & Project)

Hearing was conducted as per the Notification.
Disruption cannot nullify compliance by itself.
Written responses route ensured wider participation.

Judgment

The Court set broad procedures for meaningful public hearings under EIA 2006.
Emphasised adequate notice, due publicity, and access to information before the hearing.
Affirmed everyone’s right to express views peacefully.
Writ dismissed; costs of ₹25,000 payable to Aqua.

Ratio Decidendi

Fair process enables real participation: Public consultation is valid only when people are informed in time and can speak without fear.

Administration must facilitate, not frustrate: Authorities must design hearings that are accessible, orderly, and responsive.

Why It Matters

Gives a how-to framework for EIA public hearings.
Protects the voice of affected communities.
Guides officials on notices, publicity, and handling disruptions.

Key Takeaways

Publicity and timely information are indispensable.
Two-track consultation: hearing + written responses.
Orderly conduct is essential; disruptions must be managed.
Procedural fairness is the yardstick for validity.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Notice, Inform, Hear” (NIH)

Notice — Give adequate, widely published notice.
Inform — Share complete, readable documents.
Hear — Ensure a calm, fair hearing + accept written views.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Was the public hearing compliant with EIA 2006 and was the PIL bona fide?

Rule: Procedural fairness; EIA’s two-part consultation (hearing + written inputs).

Application: Court focused on designing fair procedures—notice, publicity, access to documents, orderly conduct—so participation is meaningful.

Conclusion: Framework clarified; writ dismissed; costs imposed.

Glossary

EIA Notification 2006: Rules that require prior environmental clearance and public consultation.
Public Hearing: In-person meeting near the project site to hear local concerns.
Written Response: Submissions from any concerned person with a stake in environmental aspects.