The Adanis have found a powerful ally in their fight with the National Green Tribunal (NGT): the Modi government itself. In a courtroom alliance that blurs the line between regulator and regulated, the Union environment ministry has joined forces with Adani Power and NTPC to challenge the NGT. Their common cause: defending a 2020 coal policy struck down for favouring business over clean air. Now, the government and India’s biggest power producers are fighting side by side to bring it back.
An unusual legal battle began to take shape in the Supreme Court of India during July and August this year. For all practical purposes, on one side stand the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Adani Power Limited, NTPC Limited, the Association of Power Producers (APP), and a few smaller thermal power companies. On the other side is K. Saravanan, a resident of Tamil Nadu who approached the NGT to challenge a 2020 policy that, he argued, dismantled vital layers of environmental scrutiny for thermal power firms.
The policy in question, issued by the environment ministry in November 2020, allows thermal power plants to change the sources of their coal supply without the rigorous approval process previously required. Earlier, any change in coal source required an amended environmental clearance, often involving a two-to-three-month expert review. The new rule, however, simplified the process, permitting plants to switch coal sources freely, subject only to a few post-change conditions.
In April 2025, the NGT agreed with Saravanan and struck down the policy, calling it a dilution of environmental safeguards. The tribunal warned that “environmental safeguard should be the prime concern” and that “ease of business and operational flexibility should not be allowed to overtake” the ministry’s core responsibilities.
The verdict sent ripples through India’s energy establishment. Major state-run power producers NTPC Limited and Damodar Valley Corporation were alarmed. Within days, they moved the Supreme Court, appealing against the NGT’s order. In early May, the apex court issued an interim stay, keeping the policy in force pending further hearings.
But what followed was even more extraordinary. In July, the Union environment ministry itself filed an appeal in the Supreme Court defending the very policy the NGT had quashed for being harmful to the environment. A month later, the APP, a powerful lobby of private thermal power producers, filed a separate appeal supporting the same policy. The APP’s submission, backed by Adani Power and five smaller firms, mirrored the ministry’s position almost word for word on several key aspects.
These appeals, reviewed by New Delhi Post, reveal a remarkable convergence of interests: the regulator and the regulated now stood shoulder to shoulder. While the ministry’s mandate is to safeguard the environment and regulate pollution, its Supreme Court filing appeared to champion the operational and economic interests of the very industries it is meant to oversee.
At the heart of this legal drama lies a two-page Office Memorandum (OM) issued in November 2020 and amended twice later. The environment ministry claimed the OM aimed to “encourage thermal power plants to use domestic coal”, aligning with a contemporaneous advisory from the Ministry of Power that urged a shift from imported to indigenous coal to bolster self-reliance.
The OM effectively removed a major procedural hurdle. Previously, power plants were required to apply for a revised environmental clearance each time they changed coal sources, ensuring a case-specific environmental review. The new policy allowed them to skip this process altogether. Companies merely had to inform authorities about the new coal source, its quantity, quality and mode of transportation, while pledging adherence to emission standards and fly ash norms.
In practice, this meant power plants could now import or source coal from anywhere, domestic or foreign, without waiting months for regulatory scrutiny. New Delhi Post’s review of court filings confirms that this relaxation was immensely beneficial to the industry.
The APP, in its appeal supported by Adani Power, argued that the flexibility in coal procurement since 2020 “was instrumental in managing emergencies such as shortages in domestic linkage coal, delays in rail or port logistics, and the need to procure imported coal during domestic crises”.
Simply put, the OM gave power companies convenience, speed and freedom—at the cost of environmental oversight. What is striking is not only the content of the appeals but their near-identical reasoning. Both the environment ministry and the thermal power producers appear to have presented the same core arguments in defending the policy and criticising the NGT’s judgment.
Their shared contentions included:
• The NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by striking down a government policy, as judicial review of such decisions lies only with the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
• The tribunal failed to adequately consult stakeholders before quashing the policy.
• The NGT wrongly claimed the policy granted a “blanket exemption” from environmental clearances.
• The OM already contained sufficient safeguards to mitigate environmental impact.
• Restricting flexibility in sourcing coal would disrupt power plant operations.
These arguments are telling, not only for their substance but for what they reveal about the ministry’s posture. In the APP’s appeal, the Union of India, represented by the environment secretary, was formally listed as a respondent. Yet, in essence, both sides were fighting for the same goal: reinstatement of the coal policy.
The spectacle of the environment ministry defending coal companies has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and legal experts. They argue that the ministry’s duty is to regulate industry, not to act as its advocate.
Parul Gupta, an independent environmental lawyer, called it “a pure example of development taking precedence over the environment”. She added, “It is unfortunate that the regulatory authority is hand in glove with the power sector companies.”
Gupta also dismissed the ministry’s argument that the NGT lacked authority to review Office Memoranda. “There have been numerous precedents where the NGT has exercised its powers under Section 14 of the NGT Act to examine administrative orders,” she explained. “If such an OM contradicts the parent legislation or its intent, the tribunal has every right to set it aside.”
Durga Moorthy, a Tamil Nadu-based researcher and environmental activist, echoed this concern. “National energy security and environmental conservation aren’t mutually exclusive,” she said. “Power companies must fully comply with environmental laws. It is unjustifiable to bypass due process in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification in the name of ensuring electricity supply.”
According to Moorthy, the 2020 policy was crafted precisely to bypass the procedural safeguards mandated under the EIA notification, which operationalises the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
In its April 2025 judgment, the NGT made it clear that changing coal sources is not a trivial matter. Variations in coal grade, ash content, sulphur, moisture and calorific value can all have significant environmental implications.
“The variation in coal grade, ash content, sulphur content, moisture level and calorific value can significantly affect emissions, thermal efficiency and ash generation,” the tribunal observed. “Imported coal often has lower ash content but higher sulphur. Domestic coal, on the other hand, can increase particulate emissions and generate greater fly ash volumes.”
By removing the need for case-by-case environmental clearance, the OM, the tribunal concluded, “failed to account for these scientific realities.”
The NGT’s ruling underscored that environmental policy cannot be driven by administrative convenience. Any relaxation, it said, must be backed by scientific analysis and environmental safeguards—not by the operational exigencies of industry.
The Supreme Court’s interim stay means the 2020 policy continues to operate for now. But the final verdict could shape the contours of environmental governance and industrial regulation in India for years to come.
Observers say that, at its core, this case encapsulates India’s larger dilemma: how to reconcile its growing energy demands with its obligations towards environmental protection. The ministry’s stance has sparked concern over whether India’s environmental regulator remains a true watchdog or has quietly become a partner in the very pollution it was meant to curb.
In the courtroom battle over coal and clean air, the verdict will determine far more than the fate of one policy. It may define where India, as a nation, draws the line between development and destruction.
THE BATTLELINE
What is the Issue?
Coal Policy 2020 allows thermal power plants to switch coal sources without fresh environmental clearance.
NGT strikes down the policy this year; gives priority to environmental safeguard over business.
Who fights whom?
Adani Power, NTPC, APP and the government move to SC against NGT verdict.
The government argues against ‘NGT overreach’. Says safeguards exist; flexibility vital for energy security.
What is the Core Question?
Should the government prioritise “ease of business” over clean air?
(Akshay Deshmane is a Delhi-based independent environmental journalist)
