SC Overturns NGT Order Against Art of Living Over 2016 World Culture Festival, Orders Refund of ₹5 Crore

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the National Green Tribunal’s 2017 judgment holding the organisers of the Art of Living’s 2016 World Culture Festival responsible for damage to the Yamuna floodplains, bringing a decade-long legal controversy over the event to a close.

In its judgment dated August 22, 2026, a Bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India, the legal entity associated with the Art of Living, against the NGT’s December 7, 2017 judgment. The Court set aside the NGT judgment along with the consequential and interim actions taken against the appellant.

The ruling strikes at the foundation of the original finding: the Supreme Court held that the crucial causal link between the World Culture Festival and the alleged degradation of the floodplain had not been established. It found that there was substantial material showing that the event site was already in a dilapidated or damaged condition before it was handed over to the organisers.

The Court specifically noted that the NGT’s first expert report, which formed the basis for the Tribunal’s initial finding of damage, merely described the condition of the floodplain at the time of inspection. It did not establish that the site had been in a better condition before preparations for the festival began. 

The Supreme Court observed that the real question was whether the organisers had caused additional damage, and said the NGT had failed to answer that question before holding them liable.

₹120-Crore Claim Questioned

One of the most striking aspects of the Supreme Court’s judgment concerns the early estimate that restoration of the floodplain could cost approximately ₹100–120 crore.

The Court found that this figure was incorporated into the expert committee’s report without any supporting basis. It noted that the Chairman of the committee had, in a separate letter dated March 3, 2016, distanced himself from the figure and described it as unscientific. The Court further observed that a later report by the same committee suggested a substantially lower restoration expenditure.

The Court also criticised the manner in which the NGT dealt with the material before it. It observed that the interim order of March 9, 2016 had been based on a single visual inspection and had not properly considered counter-material. 

The Court further held that the interim finding was subsequently treated as effectively conclusive even though it had originally been described as an interim order passed without prejudice to the parties’ rights and contentions.

Shashi Shekhar’s Letter

The controversy over the ₹120-crore estimate had already surfaced in a confidential communication written by Shri Shashi Shekhar, IAS, then Secretary in the Ministry of Water Resources and Chairman of the NGT-appointed committee.

According to the material submitted in the case, Shekhar stated that he did not endorse the committee’s ₹120-crore quantification, describing it as having no scientific basis and being an ad hoc figure. He suggested that any damage and the probable cost of restoration should instead be assessed scientifically after the event.

The Supreme Court itself took note of this separate letter and recorded that the committee chairman had distanced himself from the ₹100–120-crore figure.

Disputed NGT Proceeding

The Art of Living’s documents have for years alleged that the proceedings before the NGT under then Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar, former NGT Chairperson and retired Supreme Court Judge, suffered from a series of procedural and evidentiary irregularities.

A document titled Eighteen Instances of Injustice by Justice Swantantra Kumar alleges, among other things, that the ₹5-crore deposit was ordered only two days before the festival, that objections to an interim expert report were not allowed, that the ₹120-crore figure followed a cursory visual inspection, and that the committee chairman’s objection to that figure was not properly disclosed to the Art of Living.

The same document alleges that a later committee report favourable to the Art of Living was disregarded, that photographs showing the condition of the site were not adequately considered, and that the Tribunal relied on a disputed characterisation of the event site as a wetland. These are allegations advanced in the Art of Living’s material, rather than independent findings of the Supreme Court in the present judgment.

The Supreme Court, however, independently found serious shortcomings in the NGT’s approach. It held that the Tribunal had been swayed by the expert committee’s report without adequately examining contemporaneous evidence about the pre-existing condition of the site. It also found that the report was sweeping and based on subjective assessment.

Pre-Existing Condition of the Site

A significant piece of evidence concerned construction debris already present on the land.

The Supreme Court noted that, on December 14, 2015-before the NGT proceedings began-the appellant had written to the Delhi Development Authority about construction debris and material lying at the allotted site. DDA subsequently permitted its removal. The Court said this contemporaneous material could not have been overlooked or the debris attributed to the Art of Living without examination.

The Court further noted that earlier material before the Tribunal had recorded the floodplain as already being in a damaged condition before the site was handed over for the festival. It therefore found that the NGT should have specifically determined whether the preparatory activities between December 2015 and February 2016 caused additional damage.

₹5-Crore Fine Was Ordered

The Supreme Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority to refund the ₹5 crore deposited by the appellant pursuant to the NGT’s March 9, 2016 order. The refund is to be made within four weeks.

At the same time, the Court made clear that its ruling does not relieve DDA of its broader responsibility for the management and rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplains. The Court specifically left those responsibilities intact.

The judgment also makes an important distinction: the Court did not approve the decision of DDA to permit the event on an active floodplain. In fact, it criticised DDA’s manner of granting permission and said the authority had failed in its duties to prevent further deterioration. But it stressed that the legality of DDA’s permission was not the issue before it; the question was whether the Art of Living had caused the alleged damage.

From a ₹120-Cr Headline to a SC Reversal

The World Culture Festival, held from March 11 to 13, 2016, became one of the most high-profile environmental controversies in the capital. The NGT’s interim order, passed just two days before the event, required the organisers to deposit ₹5 crore as environmental compensation. The Tribunal subsequently concluded that the event had caused significant damage to the floodplain and wetlands.

The Supreme Court’s examination of the record, however, reached a fundamentally different conclusion on attribution. It found that the evidence did not establish that the degradation of the site was caused by the Art of Living’s event. 

The Court specifically said that the material on record showed the site had already been in a dilapidated condition and that the causal link necessary to invoke liability had not been established.

The Art of Living’s official press release described the ruling as bringing closure to what it called a decade-long “media trial” surrounding the 2016 festival and said that the Court had established that the World Culture Festival caused no damage to the Yamuna floodplains. It also highlighted the event’s international scale, with participation from more than 155 countries and approximately 3.5 million people attending on the ground.

For Gurudev Sri Sri Ravishankar and the Art of Living, the Supreme Court ruling therefore represents a decisive legal vindication on the central allegation that the 2016 World Culture Festival caused the environmental damage attributed to it.

More broadly, the judgment raises questions about the importance of establishing causation through objective evidence before imposing environmental liability-and about the consequences when interim findings, formed before a full examination of the evidence, come to dominate an entire judicial proceeding. 

The Supreme Court’s conclusion is unequivocal on that central point: the NGT’s finding against the appellant could not stand, and the ₹5-crore deposit must be returned.

ALSO READ: Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Conferred With Luxembourg Peace Prize For Advancing Peace Across 182 Countries