Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Environmental LawSupreme Court of India

Tapas Guha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 399Decided 6 May 2024
Not available
Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The Union Government decided to build a commercial Greenfield Airport at Silchar, Assam, on land carved out of the Doloo Tea Estate, eventually covering about 404 hectares (including land needed to resettle around 173 dwelling units). The appellants approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) alleging that nearly 42 lakh tea bushes and over 10,000 shade trees were being cleared, and heavy machinery deployed, without the mandatory prior Environmental Clearance required for airport projects under the 2006 EIA Notification. The NGT dismissed their plea, reasoning it was premature since the Environmental Clearance process was still pending, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court had a district judiciary officer conduct an on-ground fact-finding inquiry, which confirmed large-scale uprooting of tea bushes and cutting of shade trees using JCB machines over several days, with residents restricted from moving during the operation. The Court rejected the State's argument that this was routine tea-garden maintenance not requiring clearance, holding that setting up an airport squarely falls within the activities requiring Environmental Clearance under the 2006 Notification, and that no such clearance had been obtained. It allowed the appeal, set aside the NGT's order, and directed that no further activity take place at the site in breach of the Notification, and that any future clearance application be assessed based on the site's condition before the illegal clearing occurred.

Lesson Learnt

Infrastructure projects like airports cannot bypass mandatory environmental clearance by re-labelling large-scale land clearing as routine agricultural activity. Courts will look at the ground reality, not just paperwork framing, before allowing development to proceed.

Tapas Guha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware