Environmental clearances are a statutory prerequisite for all industrial projects prior to commencement, not after. Strengthening their legal enforcement architecture, the Supreme Court recently quashed the Centre’s power granting green nods post facto, via office memorandums as against clearances under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The top court also pointed out that the memorandum has become a perpetual mechanism instead of a one-time amnesty. The question remains open as to why the court did not strike it down or restrict the Executive’s power to legitimise environmental violations. Instead, it upheld the possibility of a limited, statutory, public interest-based amnesty under the 1986 Act to balance environmental protection with development priorities. It means that the Centre’s power to grant further post facto relief remains permissible. Also, Wednesday’s verdict will apply prospectively, with the post facto clearances granted earlier remaining valid unless individually challenged.
An important aspect of obtaining an environmental clearance is the environmental impact assessment (EIA), which is often baked into the planning and approval stage. In other words, project sanctions are based on the impact assessment study to ensure that development does not come at the cost of environment. If companies commence work without obtaining the necessary compliances, treating environmental nod merely as a checklist, it amounts to unauthorised and illegal activity. The law does penalise violators, imposing fines or even permanent project bans. But developers who bypass the norms are emboldened by the Centre’s amnesty window, with little fear of enforcement action and statutory consequence. More than financial repercussions for developers, the absence of EIA could result in irreversible environmental damage. The onus lies with the government to ensure that such projects do not seek refuge under administrative orders.
In the past, violators have escaped narrowly with the court observing that remedy could better serve the environment than project closures. While the latest judgement draws a distinction between a limited statutory amnesty and a continuing administrative mechanism permitting regularisation of violations, the question remains how the government would ensure that its administrative actions do not legitimise unauthorised activities. The environmental clearance is a substantive and consequential check, not a mere procedure. Adherence to environment laws is not just a legal mandate, but a moral and economic imperative, too. India’s sustainable development goals should be firmly anchored in environmental compliance and protection. Non-compliance must attract strict regulatory scrutiny with irrevocable consequences.