Ganga Floodplain Rule Under Legal Test

New Delhi, Aug 23: For nearly a decade, construction along the Ganga's banks was governed by a fixed buffer, a line drawn in the original 2016 order that developers and authorities alike were required to respect. An August 2026 notification has now redrawn that line, and the National Green Tribunal wants to know if it was allowed to

The tribunal has issued notice to the Centre, the National Mission for Clean Ganga and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on a plea filed by Amit Kumar, challenging amendments to the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order of 2016. A bench of NGT Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and expert member Afroz Ahmad will take the matter up again on October 27

According to the plea, the amended notification removed the original order's "no construction zone" clause entirely, substituting it with a floodplain defined by a one-in-five-year return period, a recurrence interval that corresponds to roughly a 20 per cent chance of a flood event in any given year. The petitioner calls this redefinition "ultra vires" of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, arguing it dismantles rather than refines the protective scheme the original order was built to enforce

That original scheme did not emerge in isolation. The plea traces it to earlier judicial interventions, including a 2015 NGT order that referenced Supreme Court and high court directions setting a 100 to 200 metre no-construction distance from river banks, and a 2017 tribunal order that fixed a 100 metre no-development zone specifically for the stretch between Haridwar and Unnao. Both are cited as precedent the new notification runs against

What separates the two regulatory approaches is method. A distance-based buffer applies uniformly regardless of terrain or flood behaviour, while a floodplain defined by return period shifts depending on hydrological data and modelling. Whether that shift genuinely reflects updated flood science, or quietly narrows the area actually protected, is the question the NGT has now agreed to examine

The Centre's response is awaited. Until then, the notification remains in effect, and the tribunal's October hearing will determine whether it can withstand scrutiny under the 1986 Act and the tribunal's own prior orders