Environmental Protection Takes Priority Over Development in Coastal Regulation Zone Case: Kerala HC

A Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of Kerala Coastal Zone Mangement Authority v P. M. Sukhilesh and Others, (WA No. 212 of 2021) dated Janaury 7, 2025, dismissed an appeal challenging the judgement of a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Kerala to quash the permission granted by Coastal Regulation Zone Authority (CRZA) to the Dharmadam Grama Panchayat (the “Panchayat”) for constructing a public crematorium in a dense mangrove forest classified under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)-IA.

The dispute arose when the Panchayat sought to construct a crematorium on 20 cents of wetland in the Kannur district of Kerala. The area, known for its dense mangrove cover, was initially classified as CRZ-IA under the CRZ notifications issued by the Government of India under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which strictly prohibits construction in such zones except under specific exceptions. The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (the “CRZ Authority”) had initially rejected the Panchayat’s requests for permission, however, in December 2018, the CRZ Authority granted clearance, reclassifying the area as CRZ-III, which permits certain constructions. The Single Judge quashed the clearance in November 2020, leading to the present appeals.

The Division Bench upheld the judgement of the Single Judge finding that the clearance granted in December 2018 was erroneous on its face. The permission explicitly classified the area as CRZ-I, and the subsequent reclassification to CRZ-III in 2020 could not retroactively validate this clearance. The Division Bench noted that the Panchayat’s own application consistently referred to the area as CRZ-I, undermining claims of a prior misclassification.

The Bench also criticized the CRZ Authority for prioritizing development over its statutory role of enforcing environmental regulations. It highlighted that while public crematoriums serve a crucial need, such utility cannot override the imperative of protecting ecologically fragile zones. The Bench observed that the CRZ Authority disregarded these findings, issuing a “rectification” order that effectively sanctioned activities prohibited under CRZ-IA. Further, the Bench underscored the need for case-by-case review of construction permissions, even in CRZ-III zones, to account for site-specific environmental characteristics. It noted that the mangrove cover and the ecological importance of the site warranted a thorough review, which was absent in this case. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision to quash the permissions.

The judgment emphasized that environmental protection serves a larger public interest, surpassing localized developmental goals. It reaffirmed the CRZ-IA classification and stressed strict adherence to regulations to preserve sensitive coastal ecosystems, prioritizing conservation over development.