LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v. Manoj Misra (Dead)

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 910Decided 22 Aug 2026
C.A. No. 683 of 2018
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

The appellant, "Vyakti Vikas Kendra India" (running the "Art of Living" centre), organized the World Culture Festival on the Yamuna floodplains in Delhi in March 2016. Respondent Manoj Misra filed applications before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) alleging the event violated an earlier NGT ruling protecting the Yamuna floodplains and caused serious ecological damage. The NGT, after appointing expert committees, held that the event had damaged the floodplain and wetlands and imposed compensation obligations on the organizer as well as directions concerning DDA (Delhi Development Authority), which had granted permission for the event.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT's 2017 judgment against the appellant, holding that the "polluter pays" principle requires a proven causal link between the alleged polluter and the damage before liability can be imposed, and that no such causal link had been established here: indeed there was evidence the site was already degraded before being handed over for the event. The Court found the NGT had wrongly foreclosed the appellant from challenging the tribunal's earlier interim findings. However, the Court agreed that the DDA had acted improperly in granting permission for the event on an active floodplain, inconsistent with the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine, though it declined to issue fresh directions on that point since DDA's rehabilitation obligations were already governed by an earlier NGT judgment. The appellant was ordered to receive a refund of the Rs. 5 crore environmental compensation it had earlier deposited.

Lesson Learnt

Environmental liability under the "polluter pays" principle cannot be imposed merely on suspicion or by shifting the burden unfairly onto a party: a clear causal link between the person and the actual damage must be established; and regulatory authorities that grant permissions on ecologically sensitive land can themselves be found to have failed their public duty, even where the event organizer is exonerated.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case