Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in India
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India recently stayed an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) that allowed ex-post facto environmental clearances. This practice permitted projects to seek environmental approvals after commencing operations or even post-completion, contravening the foundational precautionary principle of environmental law. The court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing prior assessment to prevent ecological harm.
About EIA
Definition & Purpose:
EIA is a systematic process to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a proposed project before approval. It ensures decision-makers consider environmental risks and mitigation measures upfront.
Legal Framework:
- Governed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- First notified in 1994, with major amendments in 2006 to institutionalize a structured process.
- Mandates prior environmental clearance for projects in sectors like mining, infrastructure, and industry.
Key Objective:
To balance development with sustainability by restricting projects that pose significant environmental risks unless they comply with mitigation protocols.
Stages of EIA Process
- Screening:
- Determines if a project requires EIA based on size, location, and potential impact.
- Example: Small-scale industries may be exempt, while large dams undergo full assessment.
- Scoping:
- Identifies key issues and impacts to be studied.
- Involves terms of reference (ToR) for preparing the EIA report.
- Public Consultation:
- Mandatory under 2006 rules.
- Ensures concerns of affected communities (e.g., displacement, pollution) are heard.
- Conducted through public hearings and written feedback.
- Appraisal:
- Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or State EAC scrutinizes the EIA report.
- Recommends clearance, rejection, or conditions for compliance.
Ex-Post Facto Clearance: Controversy & Supreme Court’s Role
What is Ex-Post Facto Clearance?
- Retrospective approval for projects that began operations without prior environmental clearance.
Why Controversial?
- Violates the precautionary principle (prevent harm rather than mitigate later).
- Encourages regulatory non-compliance, as industries might proceed illegally, assuming approvals can be regularized.
- Undermines public consultation, depriving communities of a voice in projects affecting their environment.
Judicial Response:
- In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Rohit Prajapati (2020), the Supreme Court criticized ex-post facto approvals as “environmental vandalism.”
- The recent stay on MoEF&CC’s memo reinforces that prior clearance is mandatory, aligning with global standards like the Rio Declaration (1992).
Implications of the Stay:
- Projects operating illegally may face penalties, shutdowns, or demolition.
- Strengthens accountability for industries and regulatory bodies.
Broader Challenges & Debates
- Development vs. Environment:
- Industries argue ex-post facto approvals ease bureaucratic delays, but environmentalists warn of irreversible ecological damage.
- EIA 2020 Draft Controversy:
- Proposed amendments sought to dilute public consultation and exempt strategic projects. The stay on ex-post facto clearances signals judicial pushback against such deregulation.
- Community Rights:
- Bypassing public consultation infringes on Article 21 (Right to Life), as seen in cases where pollution impacts health and livelihoods.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s intervention reaffirms India’s commitment to sustainable development. By halting ex-post facto clearances, it prioritizes long-term ecological integrity over short-term industrial gains. This decision sets a precedent for stricter enforcement of EIA norms, ensuring projects adhere to the “prior assessment, then approval” ethos. However, systemic challenges like inadequate enforcement capacity and political pressures on regulatory bodies remain critical hurdles.
