The Supreme Court on Thursday diluted its earlier order that effectively barred fresh industrial activity in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without its prior approval, permitting the TTZ Authority to process around 410 pending applications, most of them filed by micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) seeking permission for industrial establishment, expansion or relocation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order in the suo motu case "In Re Regulation of Industries in Taj Trapezium Zone."

The Court modified its October 14, 2024 order, under which the TTZ Authority had been restrained from permitting the setting up or expansion of industries without obtaining prior approval from the Supreme Court.

Permitting the Authority to decide the pending applications, the Court today put in place a multi-layered scrutiny mechanism involving experts from the Court-appointed Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).

The Court said that the decision on the applications shall be taken by the Authority in concurrence with 1 expert each from the Court-appointed Centrally Empowered Committee and NEERI. In cases where there is divergence between the experts' views, the matter shall be decided by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, even though there is concurrence between the NEERI and CEC experts on grant of approval to an industry, ifthe Amicus Curiae feels the matter requires judicial review, the issue can be brought up before the Court.

The Court passed the order after hearing Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Liz Mathews, Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat (for applicant), Attorney General R Venkataramani and ASG Aishwarya Bhati (for TTZ Authority).

The order was dictated thus:

"We therefore direct that TTZ authority may process the applications but in every such meeting, an expert representative of the CEC and another from NEERI shall be invited and no meeting shall take place unless both subject experts are present. Similarly, in the event of 1 of the 2 experts objecting to the nature of an industry, namely classifying it not to be a 'non-polluting industry', such application shall not be accepted without leave of this court

Those cases where both experts are unanimous alongwith TTZ authority, such applications may be taken to a logical conclusion in accordance with law without reference to this court. However, all such decisions shall also be uploaded on the website of CEC, enabling public-spirited persons to submit objections/suggestions if any. Those suggestions/objections shall be considered by TTZ Authority in consultation with NEERI and CEC experts.

Every final decision should be conveyed in advance to ld. Amicus, who, if finds that any decision warrants judicial review, may move appropriate application. TTZ Authority shall be obligated to furnish complete material in respect of every industry to the subject experts nominated by CEC and NEERI well in advance before the meeting."

The Court added that the order shall apply mutatis mutandis to applications for industries other than glass industries also and it shall remain operative till completion of the impact assessment study or final determination of the definition of 'non-polluting industries'.

To recap, on October 14, 2024, while considering the issue of industrial pollution within TTZ, the Court had directed that the TTZ Authority shall not permit the setting up or expansion of new industries without the Court's approval.

While passing today's order, the Court modified that order and permitted the TTZ Authority to vet 410 applications pending with it. It acknowledged that (a) finalization of a vision document is still awaited (b) cumulative impact assessment study in terms of our order is not complete (c) final report on non-polluting industries is yet to be submitted. However, it observed, the pendency of these 3 initiatives cannot be an impediment to processing of the industries' applications.

"While all 3 pending initiatives are required to be undoubtedly completed at the earliest and in a time bound manner, it seems to us that pendency therefore should not be an impediment in processing applications received by TTZ. What is of utmost importance is that well-known precautionary principles must be strictly adhered to under supervision of domain experts", Court said.

The development came in an application filed by the TTZ authority in the suo motu case registered with regard to industries in the TTZ area. The suo motu case is an offshoot of the MC Mehta case concerning environmental issues in the TTZ area, which was closed this year by the Court and followed by registration of separate suo motu case(s).

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani submitted that the October 2024 order has resulted in many small scale industries coming to a "grinding halt". The AG said that most are small scale industires such as atta-chakki, paper products.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the Court's order has impated small scale industires in a region of 10,400 sq. kms. area. She submitted that 400 applications filed by MSMES are pending, and none of them are based on coal or coke. She asserted that the complete ban was impacting the "aspiration of millions".

Aparna Bhat, appearing for the applicant in the application in which the October order was passed, disputed the picture presented by the ASG and AG, and said that the attempt was being made to "appease" the industries. She contended that the authority was not doing its job properly, and was arbitrarily granting permissions, which necessitated the earlier Court intervention.

The AG questioned the stand of Bhat, saying that the applicant cannot "poke his nose", and contended that the application was actuated by business rivalry. Bhat took objection to the AG's expression "poke his nose", and asserted that the applicant was a public-spirited person who brought to the Court's attention a genuine issue.

Case Title: IN RE: REGULATION OF INDUSTRIES IN THE TAJ TRAPEZIUM ZONE Versus SMW(C) No. 9/2026