Editorial 2: Stitch in time
Context
Imposing steep fines on illegal units may offer only a weak deterrent.
Introduction
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared two notifications by the Union Environment Ministry as illegal, reinforcing the core principle of prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. The move addresses longstanding concerns about regulatory dilution, as past policies allowed industrial projects to bypass legal scrutiny, citing economic and procedural justifications.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Environment Ministry Notifications
- Illegal Notifications Quashed:
- The Supreme Court declared two notifications by the Union Environment Ministry as “illegal”.
- These allowed industrial units to start, expand, or modify operations without obtaining prior environmental clearance.
Importance of Prior Clearance in Environmental Law
- Central to EIA 2006:
- The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, is built around the principle of prior approval.
- The Ministry’s actions were seen as undermining this foundational requirement.
The Centre’s Actions and Justifications
- March 2017 Notification:
- Provided a “one-time” six-month window for violators to apply for environmental clearance retrospectively.
- 2021 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP):
- Allowed continued regularisation of violating projects, even those outside the 2017 window, through payment of heavy fines.
- Bypassing Parliamentary Process:
- These changes were issued via executive orders, rather than amending the Environment Protection Act through Parliament.
Government’s Three-Fold Rationale
- Historical Precedent:
- Claimed that the UPA government in 2012–2013 had begun similar regularisation processes.
- Those efforts were struck down on procedural, not substantive, grounds by the Jharkhand High Court and the National Green Tribunal.
- Economic and Environmental Disruption:
- Argued that shutting down operational units could hurt employment and the economy, while possibly worsening pollution.
- Cited judicial support for a balanced approach in past industrial disputes.
- Imposition of Penalties:
- Claimed industries were being penalised for past violations, making regularisation a corrective mechanism.
Supreme Court Verdict: Emphasis on ‘Prior’ Clearance
- Reaffirmed Legal Principle:
- The Court reiterated the inviolability of prior environmental clearance as a legal requirement.
- Projects regularised under 2017 and 2021 orders will remain unaffected, despite the ruling.
Systemic Failure and Future Implications
- Failure of Enforcement Bodies:
- The mushrooming of illegal industrial units highlights the failure of regional environmental boards in enforcing regulations.
- Ineffective Penalty Mechanism:
- The Court implied that merely collecting fines from violators is insufficient if regulatory enforcement is weak.
- Call for Stronger Enforcement:
- The judgment is a warning against future government attempts to legalise violations in the name of economic growth.
- Emphasises the need for robust on-ground implementation and monitoring.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the primacy of environmental law and sets a critical precedent against the dilution of regulatory norms. While regularised industries remain unaffected, the ruling sends a strong message: economic convenience cannot override legal obligations. Future policy must focus not just on penalties, but on robust monitoring, accountability, and genuine environmental protection.