The court found the amendment diluting expert authority inconsistent with environmental protection objectives, declaring the extension of environmental clearances unconstitutional for lacking mandatory public consultation.

-

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) in the Central Government issued a notification, S.O. 1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 extending the validity period of the Environmental Clearance ('E.C.', for short) for certain projects and activities. A clarification, in the nature of an Official Memorandum ('O.M.', for short) dated 13.12.2022 followed. As many as 66 Writ Petitions have been filed seeking the benefit of that notification, read with the above O.M. However, one Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.44547/2024, is filed challenging its constitutional vires. The learned Amicus appointed leans in favour of that numero uno. It appears that the petitioners in the genus are in trouble. The notification S.O.1807(E) and the clarificatory O.M, produced at Exts.P8 and P9 respectively in W.P(C) No.44547/2024, are under challenge. Treating the said Writ Petition as the leading case, the impugned documents under challenge are hereinafter referred to as Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 O.M, respectively.-

2. Background Facts:

It is necessary to record the genesis of introducing an additional requirement of Environmental Clearance for certain projects and activities, for which solitary purpose, the Environment Impact Notification, 2006, was issued in accord with the powers conferred under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 ('E.P. Act' and 'E.P. Rules', for short).

3. Prior to the EIA Notification of 27 January 1994 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, there was no statutory requirement for environmental clearance. The 1994 Notification mandated prior environmental clearance for specified categories of projects, including mining of major minerals over five hectares, with the MoEF & CC as the sole authority. By EIA Notification, 2006 (Notification dated 14.09.2006), State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) and State Level Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC) were constituted, with SEAC empowered to screen Category B projects into B1 (requiring EIA and public consultation) and B2 (exempting both). In Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2012 (4) SCC 629], the Hon’ble Supreme-Court directed the Central Government to implement the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010, and directed States and Union Territories to frame rules under Section 15 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957, in line with the MoEF & CC guidelines, further directing that, until such rules were implemented, all minor mineral leases, including renewals and those below five hectares, shall be granted only after obtaining prior environmental clearance from the MoEF & CC.

4. Consequently, in the year 2012, as per O.M. dated 18.05.2012, it was decided that, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Deepak Kumar (supra), all mining projects of minor minerals including their renewal, irrespective of the size of the lease, would thenceforth require prior E.C. Subsequently, O.Ms dated 24.06.2013 and 24.12.2013 were issued, of which the latter provided guidelines regarding category ‘B’ projects/activities into category ‘B1’ and ‘B2’.

5. Thereafter, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, was brought in, extending the tenure of mining leases to fifty years. Pursuant thereto, the Central Government, by Notification dated 15.01.2016, 135 brought in amendment to the EIA Notification, 2006, introducing Clause 3A, constituting District Level