Retrospective Environmental Clearances
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Environment Impact Assessment
Source: IE
Context: The Supreme Court of India struck down (Vanashakti v. Union of India) the Centre’s 2017 notification and 2021 SOP that allowed retrospective environmental clearances to industries, calling them unconstitutional and violative of the right to a clean environment.
About Retrospective Environmental Clearances:
• Definition: Ex-post facto or retrospective green clearances allow industries to start projects without prior environmental clearance and seek approval later.
• Legal Basis: These clearances violate the mandatory pre-approval system under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
About 2017 EIA Notification:
• Issued by: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)
• Intent: Provided a one-time 6-month amnesty window for violators to apply for environmental clearance post-facto.
• Scope: Covered industries that had commenced operations or changed scope without prior approval.
• Process: Appraisal was centralized; violations were still subject to action by State Pollution Control Boards.
Criticism of Retrospective Clearances:
• Undermines Due Process: Skips essential stages like public hearing, expert appraisal, and site inspection.
• Weakens Environmental Governance: Encourages violators by regularising illegal acts.
• Violates Environmental Principles: Contravenes the “precautionary” and “polluter pays” principles upheld by Indian environmental jurisprudence.
• Leads to Irreparable Damage: Example – Pollution in Delhi due to unchecked industrial activity cited by SC.
Supreme Court Judgment Highlights (Vanashakti v. Union of India):
• Held Unconstitutional: Declared the 2017 notification and 2021 SOP violative of Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• Illegal Even as One-time Measure: SC noted that even a “one-time” relaxation can’t override the public’s right to a healthy environment.
• Violation of Past Orders: Cited Common Cause (2017) and Alembic Pharma (2020) cases that denounced post-facto approvals.
• Mandated Compliance: Barred the Centre from issuing any such retrospective clearance mechanisms in the future.
• Exposed Government Strategy: SC flagged the SOP as a disguised attempt to bring in post-facto approvals without using the term.
Significance of Supreme Court Verdict:
• Upholds Environmental Rule of Law: Reinforces the mandatory nature of prior environmental clearance under the EIA 2006 framework.
• Protects Right to Clean Environment: Strengthens Article 21 by affirming the citizen’s right to a pollution-free environment.
• Discourages Regulatory Evasion: Sends a strong message against regularising illegal industrial activities post-facto.
• Boosts Judicial Oversight on Executive Actions: Asserts constitutional limits on executive discretion, preventing dilution of environmental safeguards.
• Ensures Environmental Justice: Safeguards the rights of affected communities and ecosystems from unchecked industrial expansion.
Conclusion:
The judgment reaffirms that environmental compliance is non-negotiable. Development cannot come at the cost of ecological degradation. Upholding the sanctity of the EIA process is essential for safeguarding public health and intergenerational equity.
• How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006? (UPSC-2020)