Environment and Ecology Part 8: Environmental Impact Assessment and the 2020 Draft Row, Exam-Ready Notes

Category: Civil Exams · Series: Environment and Ecology · Read time: ~10 minutes

EIA is where environment law meets projects — highways, mines, hydel dams — and the 2020 draft notification that sought to replace the 2006 regime produced one of the biggest environmental controversies of recent years. Exams test the EIA process stages, the category system, and precisely what the 2020 draft changed and why it drew fire.

Table of Contents

1. What EIA Is and Its Legal Basis
2. The 2006 Regime: Categories and the Process Stages
3. What the 2020 Draft Proposed — Change by Change
4. The Objections: Why the Draft Drew Fire
5. Post-Fact Regularisation and Case Law
6. Where the Draft Stands and the Current Frame
7. How Exams Probe This Topic
8. Quick Revision: One-Glance Facts

1. What EIA Is and Its Legal Basis

• The definition. EIA is a systematic process of evaluating a proposed project’s likely environmental and socio-economic impacts before clearance — identifying, predicting, evaluating mitigation, and public consultation — so that decisions are informed, not post-hoc.
• The legal instrument. EIA in India is implemented through notifications under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — first the 1994 notification, replaced by the 2006 notification (the operative regime), with the 2020 draft intended as the next replacement.
• The global origin. EIA entered world law via the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969/1970); India adopted it after the Bhopal gas disaster (1984) pushed the EP Act era.
• The principles behind it. Precautionary principle, polluter pays, and public participation — the trio mains answers should anchor to (all recognised in Indian jurisprudence — Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, 1996).

2. The 2006 Regime: Categories and the Process Stages

• The category ladder. Projects split by impact severity: Category A — appraised at the national level by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of MoEFCC; Category B — state level (SEAC/SEIAA), with B1 requiring full EIA and B2 requiring only less rigorous scrutiny (B2 often exempt from public hearings — a loophole much litigated).
• The screening. Decides which category a project falls in (B1/B2 scoping by SEAC).
• The scoping. Fixes the EIA study’s terms of reference (ToR).
• The draft EIA + public consultation — a minimum 30-day notice, hearing within 45 days conducted by the State Pollution Control Board/District Collector; comments also via written submissions.
• The final EIA and appraisal — the EAC/SEAC recommends; the ministry/SEIAA grants or refuses Environmental Clearance (EC) valid for 10 years (per the 2021 notification for some categories) with compliance monitoring (six-monthly reports).
• The timing rule. EC must precede construction — the “ex-ante” logic of the whole regime.

3. What the 2020 Draft Proposed — Change by Change

1. Post-facto clearance/regularisation. Projects that began without EC could seek clearance retrospectively on payment of fees — the single most-criticised clause (it converted a legal gate into a toll booth).
2. Public hearing exemptions widened. Projects flagged “strategic” (defence and border-area infrastructure within 100 km of the Line of Actual Control) exempted from public hearings and even EIA disclosure; B2 category expansions (building construction, township projects up to larger thresholds, irrigation mini-changes) reduced hearing triggers.
3. Compliance reporting diluted. Six-monthly compliance reports changed to annual — halving the monitoring frequency.
4. Shorter public-notice windows — 20 days instead of 30.
5. Single-window and time-bound approvals — clearances within defined limits; validity extensions eased; delegated powers to states for smaller categories.
6. Linear projects (pipelines, highways) — land acquisition beyond RoW exempted; hearings only where the project passes through substantially inhabited areas.
7. Non-compliance penalties restructured — environmental compensation replacing criminal prosecution routes in some cases.

4. The Objections: Why the Draft Drew Fire

• The ex-ante→ex-post inversion. Post-facto regularisation contradicts the precautionary principle and prior-approval jurisprudence — over 100 environmental groups and ~2 million combined objections (the Environment Ministry received lakhs of emails; petitions in courts) marked it among India’s most-commented-on drafts ever.
• The federal complaint. States (Kerala, West Bengal, others flagged concerns through their responses) objected to centralising exemptions while delegating only the polluting categories.
• The democratic deficit. Weakened public hearings strike at Aarhus-convention-style participation norms (India is not a party but cites the principle).
• The COVID-context criticism. The draft was released during the 2020 lockdown, limiting meaningful public consultation on a document that would limit future consultation — the irony every mains answer can deploy.
• The economic counter-argument. Proponents cited approval delays, litigation uncertainty for investors, and duplication with forest/wildlife clearances — a balanced mains answer must present this side before critiquing.

5. Post-Fact Regularisation and Case Law

• The precedent against it. The Supreme Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Chaudhuri (2020) held that “ex post facto environmental clearance is contrary to law” — expressly rejecting retrospective EC for a unit that operated without one (follows the earlier Common Cause v. Union of India, 2017 on illegally operating units in eco-sensitive zones).
• The 2021-22 extension of the 2006 regime. The ministry re-issued the 2006 notification with amendments to fix its “sunset” validity while the 2020 draft remained un-notified; the draft was revised once more in 2022-23 with modifications (dropping some controversial clauses in later iterations — status remained “under consideration” as of 2024-25; confirm latest before exam).
• The related instruments. The Environment Relief Fund under the Public Liability Insurance Act for hazard victims; the National Green Tribunal (2010) as the specialised appellate forum for EC challenges — NGT benches decide EC challenges on record, with appeal to the SC.

6. Where the Draft Stands and the Current Frame

• The operative law today remains the 2006 notification (as amended) — the 2020 draft never entered force amid the opposition; questions should answer from 2006 while knowing 2020’s deltas.
• The wider context. EIA sits inside the clearance family — forest clearance (FCA 1980), wildlife clearance (NBWL), air/water consents (SPCBs) — and the debates over “ease of doing business vs environment federalism” (pari passu with the FCA 2023 amendment row — see Part 5).
• The global comparison. Strategic environmental assessment (upstream, policy-level EIA) remains absent in India — a standard reform suggestion for mains.

7. How Exams Probe This Topic

• Prelims sequence-sets: EIA stages in order (screening→scoping→draft EIA→public hearing→appraisal); category ↔ appraising body (A–MoEFCC/EAC; B–SEAC/SEIAA); legal basis (EP Act Section 3 notification).
• Statement checks: “The 2020 draft EIA notification introduced post-facto clearance” — true (as a draft proposal). “Public hearings under the 2006 regime are conducted by the EAC” — false (SPCB/DC). “The SC has upheld ex post facto EC in Alembic Pharmaceuticals” — false, it rejected it.
• Mains framing: “The 2020 draft EIA notification inverted the precautionary logic of environmental clearance. Critically examine” (deploy clauses 1-3 of section 3 plus Alembic); “Public consultation is the soul of EIA — evaluate India’s practice” (B2 exemptions, hearing quality, COVID-context consultation).

8. Quick Revision: One-Glance Facts

• Basis. EP Act 1986, Section 3 notifications: 1994 → 2006 (operative) → 2020 (draft, never notified).
• Process. Screening→scoping→draft EIA→public hearing (SPCB/DC; 30-day notice)→appraisal (EAC-A / SEAC-B)→EC.
• 2020 deltas. Post-facto EC, hearing exemptions (strategic/100-km border; B2 expansion), annual compliance, 20-day notices.
• Cases. Alembic Pharmaceuticals 2020 (ex post facto EC contrary to law); Common Cause 2017.
• Forum. NGT (2010) for EC challenges; principles: precaution, polluter pays, participation.

Conclusion. EIA is a process diagram plus a controversy ledger. Learn the 2006 stage sequence and category ladder cold — that is every prelims question — and for mains keep three items loaded: the 2020 draft’s post-facto clause, the Alembic ruling against it, and the public-participation critique. The regime’s future shape is live politics; the exam logic of it is fully captured above.