SC bar on retrospective environmental clearance a step ahead, however gaps stay, say consultants
Atmosphere activists, coverage makers and area consultants have welcomed the latest Supreme Courtroom determination barring the Union authorities from granting retrospective environmental clearance. Nevertheless, they warned that loopholes in environmental legal guidelines nonetheless exist, and residents should keep alert to guard their constitutional rights.
The Supreme Courtroom on Friday, 16 Might, mentioned the appropriate to reside in a pollution-free environment was part of the basic proper of residents and struck down the Centre’s workplace memorandum permitting ex publish facto or retrospective environmental clearances to tasks in violation of norms.
In scathing remarks towards the federal government, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan mentioned in its judgement, “The Union Authorities, as a lot as particular person residents, has a constitutional obligation to guard the atmosphere.”
The judgement got here in response to petitions filed by the NGO Vanashakti and others, difficult two authorities workplace memorandums issued in July 2021 and January 2022 which had created a system to grant environmental clearance to tasks that started operations with out prior approval underneath the Atmosphere Influence Evaluation (EIA) Notification, 2006.
Declaring the 2021 workplace memorandum (OM) and associated circulars “arbitrary, unlawful, and opposite to the Atmosphere (Safety) Act, 1986” the court docket mentioned it “should come down very closely” on the Centre’s try to do “one thing which is totally prohibited underneath the regulation”.
The court docket mentioned tasks began with out obligatory prior environmental clearance can’t be legalised later and violators who knowingly ignored the regulation can’t be protected.
Vanashakti director Stalin D. informed PTI that residents should now be certain that the court docket’s instructions are adopted. “The judgement clearly says the federal government can’t try to present a protected haven for violators. So, now we have to make sure that our constitutional framework shouldn’t be violated in any approach.”
