A bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh also directed the Delhi Development Authority to refund ₹5 crore deposited as environmental compensation in connection with the three-day festival held from March 11 to 13, 2016.
The ruling, delivered on Saturday, August 22, came in an appeal filed by Vyakti Vikas Kendra India, an organisation associated with the Art of Living movement founded by spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. The court held that material on record indicated the site was already in a degraded condition before being handed over for the festival.
The bench found no direct evidence establishing that damage to the fragile floodplain ecosystem was caused by the event. It said the evidence instead showed pre-existing deterioration at the site and raised questions over the basis on which responsibility had been placed on the organisers.
The ₹5 crore is to be refunded by the DDA within four weeks. The court, however, maintained that the authority must continue rehabilitation work on the Yamuna floodplain under existing environmental directions, separating the DDA’s broader responsibility for protecting the area from the question of liability arising from the 2016 festival.
The World Culture Festival was organised on about 25 hectares of the active Yamuna floodplain near the DND flyway. The gathering, which drew participants from numerous countries, was reported to have attracted about 3.5 million people over three days. Preparations involved construction and modifications needed to accommodate the large-scale cultural programme.
Environmental campaigner Manoj Misra, then convener of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, along with Pramod Tyagi and activist Anand Arya, approached the NGT alleging that preparations for the event had extensively damaged the floodplain. The proceedings generated a prolonged dispute over whether alterations linked to the festival had disrupted the area’s ecology and topography.
Shortly before the festival, the NGT permitted the programme to proceed but ordered the organisers to deposit ₹5 crore as environmental compensation. The amount was intended to be adjusted against liability after assessment of the ecological impact.
The tribunal’s final order in December 2017 held the organisers responsible for damage on the basis of findings by an expert committee. It directed that the ₹5 crore already deposited be used by the DDA for restoration work rather than imposing additional compensation.
The Supreme Court identified shortcomings in the assessment used to reach that conclusion. It noted that evidence existed of construction debris and deterioration at the location before the site was allotted for the festival. The organisers had also informed the DDA about debris lying at the site and had obtained permission for its removal.
The judgment questioned reliance on satellite imagery and the expert committee’s assessment of the floodplain’s condition before the programme. Material examined during the proceedings included findings indicating grass and water at the location and no significant differences between certain pre-event and post-event images.
The bench also examined the distinction between environmental restoration and rehabilitation. It held that the concepts could not automatically be treated as interchangeable. Restoration is directed towards returning an affected area towards its earlier condition, while rehabilitation may encompass broader measures intended to restore ecological functioning and services.
The court found that the expert committee had ventured beyond the limited issue of identifying damage attributable to the festival when it recommended wider rehabilitation measures. It said responsibility for such broader environmental work could not be transferred to the appellant without evidence connecting the alleged degradation directly to the event.
Another issue concerned the NGT’s March 2016 interim findings, which followed an initial inspection shortly before the festival. The Supreme Court said an interim assessment made before all competing material was examined could not effectively become the final determination of liability without a fuller evaluation of the evidence.
