Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India (also referred to as "Art of Living International Centre").
  • Respondents: Manoj Misra (deceased) and others, including the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
  • Subject matter: Alleged environmental damage to the Yamuna river floodplain caused by the World Culture Festival (WCF) held on 11‑13 March 2016 on a 25‑hectare site upstream of the DND fly‑over.
  • Original proceedings: Three Original Applications (OAs) No. 65/2016, 76/2016 and 81/2016 were filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on 8 February 2016 by Manoj Misra, invoking the NGT’s earlier decision dated 13 January 2015 (the “Yamuna matter”) concerning floodplain rehabilitation.
  • NGT actions:
  • 11 February 2016 – notice issued; 19 February 2016 – expert committee appointed to visit the site and submit a report by 22 February 2016.
  • 22 February 2016 – interim report estimated damage requiring Rs 100‑120 crore for restoration.
  • 9 March 2016 – interim order allowed the event to proceed, imposed Rs 5 crore environmental compensation payable by the appellant, and required an undertaking for post‑event restoration.
  • 3 June 2016 – order directing the committee to assess environmental damage and restoration costs.
  • 28 July 2016 – first detailed committee report described severe damage but gave no cost estimate.
  • 28 November 2016 – second report proposed a two‑year physical rehabilitation costing Rs 28.73 crore and a ten‑year biological component costing Rs 13.29 crore, and recommended a Detailed Project Report.
  • 21 July 2017 – a separate committee of DDA, NCT‑Delhi Irrigation, and Uttar Pradesh Irrigation officials submitted a report (28 July 2017) stating no significant damage; the NGT rejected it as exceeding jurisdiction.
  • NGT’s final view (order dated 7 December 2017): held the appellant liable for restitution/restoration of the floodplain, directed DDA to assess damage, to carry out restoration under expert‑committee guidance, to develop a biodiversity park, and to utilise the Rs 5 crore deposited by the appellant, with provision for DDA to recover any excess.
  • Appellant’s contentions before the Supreme Court: argued the site was already damaged before hand‑over, challenged the methodology and reliability of the expert committee reports, disputed the equivalence of “rehabilitation” and “restoration”, and contended that the interim order was passed without prejudice and should not have become final.
  • Respondent DDA’s contentions: asserted that its permission was conditional, that it had already spent Rs 8.03 crore on restoration (per a Court order dated 20 April 2023), and that the polluter‑pays principle made the appellant liable.
  • Respondent Manoj Misra’s (deceased) position: maintained that the event violated the 2015 Yamuna judgment, that the floodplain was severely damaged, and that the appellant’s liability under the no‑fault principle was proper.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The Supreme Court examined the NGT’s reliance on expert‑committee reports, noting inconsistencies: the 22 Feb 2016 report estimated Rs 100‑120 crore restoration cost, whereas the 28 Nov 2016 report gave a combined cost of Rs 42.02 crore (Rs 28.73 crore + Rs 13.29 crore) and admitted inability to assess pre‑event ecological status.
  • The Court observed that pre‑event evidence (including a 19 Apr 2014 report and the 13 Jan 2015 Yamuna judgment) already documented a dilapidated floodplain, contradicting the committee’s claim of a “green vista” before the event.
  • The Court highlighted that the appellant had written to DDA on 14 Dec 2015 reporting construction debris on the site, and DDA had permitted its removal on 21 Dec 2015, indicating the debris pre‑existed the appellant’s preparatory work.
  • The Court rejected the NGT’s application of the no‑fault liability principle, emphasizing that liability under Section 17(3) of the NGT Act requires a proven causal link between the appellant’s actions and actual environmental damage, which was not established.
  • The Court noted that the third committee’s report (28 July 2017) found no significant difference in the site’s condition before and after the event, but the NGT dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds, thereby ignoring material that nullified the damage allegation.
  • The Court affirmed DDA’s statutory responsibility for floodplain management and rehabilitation, but held that the appellant should not bear the cost of a biodiversity park or any rehabilitation beyond what could be directly linked to its actions.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s judgment dated 7 December 2017 and all consequential/interim orders against Vyakti Vikas Kendra.
  • The Rs 5 crore deposited by the appellant with DDA under the 9 March 2016 interim order shall be refunded to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.
  • DDA shall continue to carry out rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplain in accordance with the plan and directions previously issued by the NGT, without any additional financial liability on the appellant.
  • The appeal is disposed of; any pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

Topics: Environmental Liability, Floodplain Rehabilitation, Supreme Court Judgment