Brief Context
Context The Supreme Court invalidated retrospective environmental clearances, emphasizing that development cannot compromise environmental protection. Retrospective environmental clearances These are approvals granted to industrial or infrastructure projects after the commencement of operations or construction, bypassing the legal requirement of prior environmental assessment. The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, mandates pri
Source Content
Syllabus: GS3/ Environment
Context
- The Supreme Court invalidated retrospective environmental clearances, emphasizing that development cannot compromise environmental protection.
Retrospective environmental clearances
- These are approvals granted to industrial or infrastructure projects after the commencement of operations or construction, bypassing the legal requirement of prior environmental assessment.
- The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, mandates prior EC before commencing any project that may affect the environment.
Supreme Court Ruling
- The Court invalidated the 2017 notification and 2021 Office Memorandum that permitted such clearances, calling them illegal and contrary to constitutional mandates.
- The ruling cited Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live in a pollution-free environment.
- Highlighting Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, the judgment reaffirmed both state and citizen obligations to protect the environment.
| Constitutional Safeguards – Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Article 48A of the Constitution directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. – Fundamental Duties: Article 51A(g) enjoins citizens to “protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.” |
Significance of Supreme court ruling
- Custodians of environmental rights: The SC’s decision is a classic example of judicial activism to uphold environmental justice.
- Role of Polluter Pays Principle: The ruling implicitly upholds the Polluter Pays Principle, as those who pollute without clearance cannot be legally protected.
- It calls for environmental compensation mechanisms and project-specific reparations.
- International Commitments: India is a signatory to the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs).
- Allowing ex post facto clearances goes against SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
Source: IE