36 days left — Registration closes 2026-10-31.
ProgrammesCruciblePricingScholarshipLegal UpdatesBlogDiagnostic TestApplyStudent Login
CLATcoach · Current Affairs
Legal Updates
Judgments · Amendments · Notifications
Judgment

Supreme Court: 2016 bio-medical waste facility guidelines bind authorities even without gazette publication

Supreme Court of India1 min read

The Supreme Court set aside a National Green Tribunal judgment that had quashed the environmental clearance and consent to establish granted to Punahchakran Private Limited for a common bio-medical waste treatment facility in a rural area of Uttar Pradesh. The Court first held that the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 are mandatory and must be followed by authorities and project proponents alike. Their non-publication in the Official Gazette did not affect their force: relying on B.K. Srinivasan, it held that where neither the parent statute nor the rules prescribe a strict mode of publication, a reasonable mode is enough, and publication on the Central Pollution Control Board's website sufficed. It distinguished Gulf Goans Hotels, which concerned executive guidelines issued before the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

On the facts, the Court held that the one-acre land requirement could be relaxed for a rural site after consulting the CPCB, as had been done. It also held that land allotment is not a precondition for applying for environmental clearance or consent to establish, and that the terms of reference remained valid for the second clearance. Finding an egregious error in the Tribunal's reasoning, the Court restored the permissions and directed that the judgment be circulated to all NGT benches.

Quick check
Why did the Supreme Court hold that the 2016 guidelines for bio-medical waste treatment facilities were binding despite not being published in the Official Gazette?
  1. Because all guidelines issued by any ministry automatically have statutory force
  2. Because the National Green Tribunal had already declared them binding
  3. Because no strict mode of publication was prescribed, and publication on the CPCB website was a reasonable mode
  4. Because gazette publication is never required for subordinate legislation
Show the answer ↓

Answer: C. Relying on B.K. Srinivasan, the Court held that where no strict mode is prescribed, a reasonable mode of publication suffices, and the CPCB's website publication met that standard.

Source document

Issued by Supreme Court of India. If this summary and the source differ, the source is right — tell us and we will correct it.