The Supreme Court has set aside the National Green Tribunal’s 2017 judgment holding Vyakti Vikas Kendra India, the legal entity associated with the Art of Living International Centre, responsible for damage to the Yamuna floodplain during the 2016 World Culture Festival.

A Bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 683 of 2018, Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors.

Dispute Over 2016 World Culture Festival

The case arose from the World Culture Festival, organised from March 11 to 13, 2016, on approximately 25 hectares of the active Yamuna floodplain in Delhi, upstream of the DND Flyway.

The event organiser had obtained permissions from the concerned authorities, including the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Supreme Court noted that the legality of the permission granted by the DDA was not directly in issue before it.

Before the event, however, a challenge was filed before the NGT alleging that preparations for the event had damaged the Yamuna floodplain and wetlands.

On March 9, 2016, two days before the scheduled event, the NGT permitted the festival to proceed but imposed environmental compensation of ₹5 crore on the organiser. The amount was directed to be adjusted against the final compensation for restoration work.

Supreme Court Finds Causation Not Established

The Supreme Court found a crucial gap in the NGT’s reasoning: the existence of damage to the floodplain did not by itself establish that the appellant had caused that damage.

The Court noted that the floodplain was already in a damaged and dilapidated condition before it was handed over to the appellant. Earlier reports and proceedings had recorded the failure to implement restoration directions concerning the Yamuna floodplain.

The Court also took note of a December 2015 communication in which the appellant informed DDA about construction debris and material lying at the site. DDA subsequently permitted the appellant to remove the debris. The Supreme Court held that this contemporaneous material could not have been overlooked while determining whether the appellant had caused additional damage.

Expert Committee Reports Questioned

The Supreme Court found serious shortcomings in the expert committee's reports relied upon by the NGT.

The Court observed that the initial assessment relied substantially on a visual inspection and did not adequately establish that the floodplain had been in a better condition before the appellant commenced preparations for the event.

The Court also noted inconsistencies in subsequent reports, including the committee's later admission that it was not possible to assess the ecological status of the site before the event or determine the ecological state to which restoration should be carried out.

Restoration and Rehabilitation Are Different Concepts

A significant aspect of the judgment concerns the distinction between “restoration” and “rehabilitation.”

The Supreme Court held that restoration means bringing an affected area back to its original state, whereas rehabilitation seeks to make the area fully functional and capable of providing optimum ecological services.

The Court held that the NGT erred by equating the two concepts and by imposing liability upon the appellant for broader rehabilitation of the floodplain.

The Court further held that rehabilitation of public resources is primarily the responsibility of the State under the public trust doctrine and principle of intergenerational equity, while private liability arises where environmental damage is actually attributable to the concerned private party.

DDA's Permission Also Criticised

While exonerating the appellant from liability for the alleged damage, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the manner in which the DDA granted permission for the event on an active floodplain.

The Court held that permitting the event in such an area was inconsistent with the precautionary principle and doctrine of public trust, observing that DDA was responsible for protecting and maintaining the Yamuna floodplain.

However, the Court clarified that the legality of DDA's permission was not the issue before it and that no fresh directions were required regarding the rehabilitation responsibilities already assigned to DDA.

₹5 Crore Environmental Compensation to Be Refunded

In its final order, the Supreme Court set aside the NGT's judgment dated December 7, 2017, along with all consequential and interim actions taken against the appellant.

It directed DDA to refund the ₹5 crore deposited by the appellant pursuant to the NGT's March 9, 2016 order within four weeks.

At the same time, the Court clarified that DDA would continue the rehabilitation work on the Yamuna floodplains in accordance with the plans and directions issued by the NGT from time to time.

Case Name: Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 683 of 2018
Citation: 2026 INSC 910

Representation:-

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubra Swami, Adv. Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Parik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Itisha Awasthi, Adv Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Neoma Vasdev, Adv. Ms. Shivani Sethi, Adv. Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Anushka Mamgain, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Annirudh Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mrs. Chitrangda Rastaravara, Adv. Mr. S.N.Terdal (AOR), Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. T S Sabrish, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantrey, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Manoj K Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Parik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Tara, Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR