The Supreme Court set aside an NGT order against Art of Living in a Yamuna floodplain matter. The Court held that the Polluter Pays Principle cannot be invoked absent a demonstrable link to environmental damage. The Court found that contemporaneous material showed the site was already damaged before it was handed over to the appellant.
Judgement
The Supreme Court found that contemporaneous material showed the site was already damaged before it was handed over to the appellant and that evidence did not establish additional environmental damage attributable to the event. The Court held that the NGT had wrongly treated its interim findings as conclusive and had equated restoration with the wider concept of rehabilitation.
The Delhi government illegally cleared the Ridge forest area to construct a 10-kilometre-long road, violating a previous Supreme Court order that had rejected the government's request to fell or translocate 1,051 trees. The Supreme Court issued contempt proceedings against the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority and other authorities for this environmental violation.
The Coal Block Allocation cases, originating from the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (W.P.(Crl.) 120/2012), concern alleged irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks between 1993 and 2011 under the 'Government Dispensation' route, which the Supreme Court declared arbitrary and illegal. CBI has prosecuted numerous accused — including former Ministry of Coal officials and private companies — before Special Courts in Delhi — the Directorate of Enforcement has simultaneously pursued PMLA cases. As of 2025–2026, trials remain ongoing before Special Courts in Delhi (Rouse Avenue Courts), the Supreme Court continues to supervise and reconstitute benches for batch SLP hearings, the Delhi High Court has ruled on key PMLA questions, and individual sub-cases have seen both acquittals and discharges. All accused persons are presumed innocent unless a court has delivered a final conviction.
The National Green Tribunal found environmental violations regarding the construction of a highway flyover over a protected pond in New Delhi and imposed a penalty on the NHAI.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NGT judgement.
In this case, the Supreme Court examined who should pay for environmental damage. The key principle established is that whoever causes pollution must cover the costs of fixing it, rather than making the public or government pay. This ruling helps protect the environment by making polluters financially responsible for the harm they cause.
It found that contemporaneous material showed that the site was already damaged before it was handed over to the appellant and that the evidence did not establish additional environmental damage attributable to the event. The Court also held that the NGT had wrongly treated its interim findings as conclusive and had equated restoration with the wider concept of rehabilitation.
The Supreme Court is reviewing a case about who should pay for environmental damage. The basic idea is that whoever causes pollution should be responsible for cleaning it up and paying the costs, rather than leaving the burden on society. This case will help clarify how Indian courts handle environmental responsibility and damage compensation.
Cause Title: Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 910)
The Supreme Court ruled that organizations cannot be forced to pay for environmental damage unless there is a clear connection between their actions and the harm caused. In this case involving the Art of Living group and the Yamuna River area, the court canceled a previous order requiring payment. The court decided that simply operating in an environmentally sensitive area is not enough to hold someone financially responsible without proof they actually caused the damage.
The Supreme Court of India set aside the National Green Tribunal's order that had held the Art of Living Foundation liable for environmental damage to the Yamuna floodplain during its 2016 event. The Court ruled that the NGT failed to establish a direct link between the event and the alleged damage, noting that the site was already in a degraded condition.
The Supreme Court has overturned a previous decision that held the Art of Living Foundation responsible for environmental damage caused by a large event on the Yamuna riverbed. This means the foundation no longer has to pay the fines previously ordered by the National Green Tribunal. The court found that the original process used to determine the environmental impact was flawed. Consequently, the legal case against the organization regarding this specific incident has been set aside.
Updates are aggregated by AI from reputable news and court records and may contain errors. Always verify against the linked primary source.
People named in a case are accused, not guilty. Under Indian law everyone is presumed innocent until convicted by a court.
This case has been checked against 3 sources, and is re-read whenever it moves. That work is paid for by readers, not by anyone with a stake in the outcome. What that costs
Discussion
No comments yet.
Follow this case to join the discussion.