The Supreme Court recently declared illegal two Union Environment Ministry notifications allowing industries to bypass prior environmental clearances. This judgment reinforces the essential principle of prior approval under the 2006 Environment Impact Assessment Notification.

Background: Flawed Rationale Behind the Notifications

• 2017 Retroactive Window: A “one-time” six-month window was provided for industries lacking environmental clearances to apply retroactively.
• 2021 Regularisation Procedure: A standard operating procedure allowed projects violating laws to apply for regularisation by paying heavy fines.
• Bypassing Parliamentary Process: Both measures were issued through executive orders, bypassing Parliamentary amendment of the Environment Protection Act.

Centre’s Justifications for the Notifications

• 2012-2013 UPA Initiative: The UPA government initiated a regularisation process but it was struck down by courts on procedural grounds.
• Economic and Environmental Risks: Demolishing functioning plants could harm the economy and employment and potentially worsen pollution.
• Courts’ Balanced Approach: Courts had earlier supported a “balanced” approach in disputes involving industries like copper mines and pharmaceutical companies.
• Violation Fines System: The system included fines for violations during the functioning period.

Supreme Court Verdict and Implications

• Principle of Prior Clearance: The Court reaffirmed the sacrosanct principle of “prior” environmental clearance.
• Effect on Regularised Companies: Companies that regularised under the 2017 and 2021 orders remain unaffected by the verdict.
• Enforcement Failures: The widespread existence of industrial units violating laws highlights failures of regional environmental boards in enforcement.
• Ineffectiveness of Fine-based System: Allowing violators to pay fines under flawed procedures would have been ineffective.
• Judgment’s Aim: The judgment aims to prevent future attempts by governments to condone violations under economic pretexts.
• Need for Enforcement: It stresses the urgent need for effective on-ground enforcement.

Conclusion

The verdict sends a strong message against condoning environmental violations for economic gains. It underscores the urgent need for strict enforcement of environmental laws to ensure sustainable industrial growth and safeguard ecological balance.