The central government on Monday, 26 September, told the Madras High Court that self-proclaimed spiritual guru Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation did not require prior environmental clearance for carrying out construction work in Coimbatore district between the years of 2006 and 2014.
Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan told the High Court bench that the 2014 Environment Protection Amendment Rules granted exemption from environmental clearance to educational institutes, industrial sheds, and hospitals.
Isha Foundation could claim this exemption on the grounds of being an institute that promotes education, he said.
The High Court on Monday had questioned the rationale behind the exemption granted by the central government.
"Are educational institutions above the law? You are the one who makes the Rules and then you yourself grant exemptions," the High Court said.
However, the bench then changed its stance as Justice T Raja said that if such an exemption was not granted to educational institutions, then schools such as the Kodaikanal International School and Doon School would not exist.
"In that case, people living in hilly areas such as Ooty and Kodaikanal would never have had any access to education."Madras High Court
The High Court will hear the matter further on Wednesday, 28 September.
The Case
The Tamil Nadu government had issued a notice and initiated legal proceedings against the foundation in January 2022, on the grounds that it had started construction work without the necessary environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006.
The Isha Foundation had challenged the state government's action and said that the 2014 Environment Protection Amendment Rules were an extension of the 2006 Rules and were added to clarify that hostels, hospitals, industrial sheds, and educational institutes could be exempted from getting environmental clearance.
The foundation further argued that since the 2014 Rules granted exemption to educational institutes, the state government's notice initiating legal action against the foundation was illegal.
It said that it had been carrying out construction at its premises since 1994, much before the Rules were introduced.
(With inputs from Bar&Bench.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)