Kerala High Court Strikes Down Environmental Clearance Validity Extension Rules as Unconstitutional and Invalid - 2025-08-26

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Environmental Clearance Validity Extension Rules as Unconstitutional and Invalid

In a significant ruling aimed at protecting ecological integrity, the High Court of Kerala has declared a pivotal Central Government notification regarding the validity of Environmental Clearance (EC) as constitutionally invalid. Justice C. Jayachandran struck down the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) notification S.O. 1807(E), and its subsequent clarificatory Office Memorandum, as being ultra vires to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

A Question of Procedural Rigor

The dispute centered on the validity of mining projects. Under the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, mining projects were mandated to secure an EC based on a project life estimation by an expert body, subject to a 30-year cap. In April 2022, the Central Government issued a notification extending the validity of ECs to align with 50-year mining lease periods, effectively bypassing the role of expert bodies like the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC).

The court addressed the core issue of whether the Central Government could invoke the "public interest" clause under Rule 5(4) of the Environment (Protection) Rules to bypass public consultation. The ruling highlighted that the Ministry failed to provide any substantial justification for dispensing with this mandatory safeguard.

The Argumentative Divide

Petitioners challenged the amendment, arguing that it denuded expert bodies of their statutory authority to determine project life and ignored environmental impacts. They contended that shifting this power to authorities under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act created a regime void of scientific oversight.

Conversely, the Union of India and various quarrying associations argued that the notification was a necessary step toward aligning EC validity with lease periods to promote sustainable, long-term mining. They further questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, suggesting the National Green Tribunal was the appropriate forum.

Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

The court rejected the maintainability challenge, noting that the National Green Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs to quash such notifications. Justice C. Jayachandran emphasized that environmental protection is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and citizen participation—facilitated through public consultation—is non-negotiable.

The court observed that the "project life" mentioned in the notification remained vague and inconsistent with the "mine life" defined under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The ruling underscored that the notification created "utter chaos, confusion and uncertainty," rendering it unworkable and arbitrary.

Key Observations

• "Participation of the citizens is very important, and it is taken care of by allowing them to raise objections to the proposed notification. After all, citizens are major stakeholders in environmental matters."
• "Dispensation of public notice and consideration of objection... by placing purported reliance on Rule 5(4) is illegal and ultravires."
• "Taking away this right of the expert body and giving it to a body under the M.M.D.R. Act, which is incompetent to assess the environmental impact, is certainly not in the interest of the environment."

The Final Verdict

The High Court ultimately allowed the lead writ petition and dismissed the 66 connected petitions filed by various project proponents seeking the benefit of the now-void notification. The court ordered that the respective authorities take action in accordance with law, treating the expired or improperly extended ECs as invalid. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that environmental standards are not diluted by executive shortcuts.