The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a recent notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) that exempted certain building and construction projects from obtaining mandatory environmental clearances. This notification, issued on January 29, had significantly relaxed the regulations for projects up to 150,000 square meters, including industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels, sparking considerable concern among environmental groups.
The decision came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption diluted the stringent regime of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) 2006. Prior to this notification, environmental clearance was compulsory for all constructions exceeding 20,000 square meters.
A bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka, including Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, noted the wide-ranging implications of the notification across the country and issued a stay, demanding a thorough examination of the issue. “Issue notice… In the meantime, stay on the operation of the notification,” the bench declared.
The petition highlighted that the exemptions could lead to unregulated construction in ecologically sensitive zones, including areas protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, critically polluted areas, and near interstate boundaries. The area covered by the exemption is substantial, equating to more than 1.6 million square feet, potentially leading to severe environmental degradation.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Vanashakti, pointed out that this was the fourth attempt by the MoEFCC to exempt certain construction projects from the EIA requirements. Previous attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 were struck down or stayed by various courts due to similar concerns.
Furthermore, the MoEFCC’s subsequent office memorandum expanded the definition of “educational institutions” and “industrial sheds” to include a wide array of facilities, thereby broadening the scope of the exemption even further. This has raised alarms about potential environmental impacts, with experts warning that the relaxed rules could exacerbate pollution and degrade natural resources.
The petition also contended that the notification violated the Environment Protection Rules of 1986, which require detailed reasons for any such exemptions, a stipulation that was not met. “The removal of the EIA process would have a severe and deleterious impact on the environment as a whole and would contravene the precautionary principle…which is a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence in the country,” the petition stated.
Environmental advocates, including Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust and Debadityo Sinha of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, have applauded the Supreme Court’s intervention. They emphasized that the EIA process is essential for ensuring that development projects do not proceed without a thorough assessment of their environmental impacts, especially in sensitive areas.
