Stitch in time: on judiciary and Environment Ministry notifications
Last week, the Supreme Court of India finally struck down as 'illegal' two notifications by the Union Environment Ministry that allowed industrial units to set up, expand operations or change their manufacturing practices without following the due process of taking government permission beforehand. Taking 'prior' approval is a sacrosanct principle at the heart of the Environment Impact Assessment (Notification) of 2006. On the surface it appeared that the Centre, or the Union Environment Ministry, had instituted a system that made a mockery of this principle, but there was a rationale, even if it was flawed to some extent. In March 2017, the body issued a notification providing a 'one-time' six-month window for industries that did not have the right environmental clearances, to apply for one. In 2021, it instituted a 'standard operating procedure' that in effect allowed projects in violation of the laws, but which could not avail of the six-month window, to apply — albeit at the cost of heavy fines — for regularisation. Moreover, all these significant changes were being issued through executive orders, rather than any attempt at amending the underlying Environment Protection Act (EIA), 2006, through Parliament.
The Centre's reasoning was three-fold. First, the process for regularising projects had already been initiated by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2012 and 2013. These were, however, struck down by the Jharkhand High Court and the National Green Tribunal on procedural grounds, and not that these projects were irredeemably violative. Second, demolishing functioning plants that were contributing to the economy and employment could exacerbate pollution and be disruptive. The Centre cited examples of various disputes involving copper mines to pharmaceutical companies where the courts had agreed that a 'balanced' approach was necessary in cases involving violations. Finally, it argued that it had put in place a system whereby the industrial units seeking to be regularised would have to pay fines for the period that they had functioned in violation. The Court in its final verdict has rightly, as previous courts have, emphasised the principle of 'prior' clearance, though its action may be a little late as it has clarified that companies that had regularised themselves under the 2017 and 2021 orders would be 'unaffected' by the judgment. That thriving industrial units in violation of the laws mushroomed is a testament to the collective failure of regional environmental boards to enforce laws. So it stands to reason that making these illegal units pay, under the purported new procedure, would have been a fruitless exercise. The judgment should ideally nip any 'crafty' attempts by future governments to condone violations in the name of the economy though it must also trigger on-ground enforcement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Procurement of oilseeds and pulses lagging behind cereals
Recent efforts by the Centre to ramp up output of pulses and oilseeds, which the country imports heavily, such as procurement at minimum support prices (MSP) have been inconsistent, as the key beneficiaries of MSPs continue to be water-guzzling cereals such as rice and wheat, latest Reserve Bank of India (RBI) figures show. While procurement of pulses and oilseeds by the government has increased by several times, it is still far lower than that of wheat and rice. India grows plentiful cereals, but not enough pulses and oilseeds, the imports of which are a key factor that stokes inflation and also causes a drain of precious foreign exchange for regular imports The Modi government has adopted a two-pronged strategy to encourage farmers to grow more lentils and oilseeds. While the government has consistently announced higher MSPs for pulses and oilseeds as an incentive for farmers, compared to cereals, the Union cooperation as well as the food ministries have been pressing state-backed cooperatives to procure these items from farmers. Procurement, the cornerstone of India's food policy, refers to the government's purchase of food commodities at MSPs, which are federally fixed floor rates aimed at offering a minimum of 50% returns over cost of cultivation. Yet figures show that procurement of cereals far outstrips pulses or oilseeds. According to the latest official data, the Centre procured 77.86 million tonnes of cereals (52.26 million tonnes of rice and 26.26 million tonnes of wheat) during the 2024-25 agricultural crop year. Compared to this, the government was able to procure only 4.6 million tonnes of pulses and 0.6 million tonnes of oilseeds. During the winter-sown, or rabi, season of 2024-25, state agencies procured 0.43 million tonnes of pulses, especially gram, according to the recently released Reserve Bank of India annual report. To be sure, procurement of cereals is higher because foodgrains tend to have a far larger marketable surplus (total output minus total consumption of growers). Moreover, India also needs to stockpile large quantities of wheat and rice for distribution to nearly 800 million beneficiaries under the National Food Security Act. Official data show a see-sawing, inconsistent trend in pulses procurement. Figures presented in Rajya Sabha in response to an unstarred question on Dec 6, 2024 showed that in 2019-20, the government procured 2.8 million tonnes of pulses; which in 2020-21 fell to 0.81 million tonnes. In 2021-22, state agencies procured 3.3 million tonnes; in 2022-23, 2.8 million tonnes and in 2023-24, 0.69 million tonnes. The Union Budget 2025-26 had announced that 100% of a state's production of pigeon pea (tur), black gram (urad) and yellow lentils (masoor) will be procured for the next four years till 2028-29 to achieve self-sufficiency in pulses in the country. Pulses and oilseeds are purchased under the Centre's price support scheme, which falls under an umbrella scheme called the Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay Sanrakshan Abhiyan (PM-AASHA). 'The government has signalled a commitment to substantially increase procurement of pulses. But more needs to be done for it to act as a nudge to grow more,' said Abhishek Agrawal of UN Comtrade.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Stay open: Customs mustn't let its green channel turn red
As reported, the government is working on a strategy to take down an illicit but sophisticated network of 'import carriers' at Indian air and seaports—a gang of smugglers, i.e., masquerading as regular tourists. Of late, there have been many reports of duty-evasion cases. Among those that caught public attention, a Kannada actor was stopped at Bengaluru airport allegedly trying to smuggle in more than 14kg of gold in March. Authorities not only have the usual suspects under watch, but also people with 'special privileges' at airports. 'Import carriers' are suspected of sneaking in illegal quantities of gold, electronic gadgets and even Chinese toys, which face high tariff and quality barriers. So far, so usual. No one wants smugglers running rings around customs and police, who must enforce the law. But it would help to know exactly how widespread this problem is. Data should be made public so that sporadic slip-throughs do not become a basis for tighter policy. Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | Ranya Rao arrest: Let gold enter India duty-free The measures being discussed reportedly include making customs declarations more detailed, placing a cap on how often passengers—especially frequent flyers from trade hubs like Dubai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou—can avail annual duty-free allowances and tweaking the Atithi app's declaration system for stricter tracking and 'AI-based profiling.' Even if well intended, some of it sounds like a throwback to the days before India's economy was opened up. Back then, our duties were sky-high and airports were notorious for nosy and corrupt officials at customs, whose 'leave us a bottle' demand was so customary that it often went unstated, making a stop at the duty-free shop a ritual of passage. Rules began being eased in the 1980s. As arrival numbers rose, the opening of a walk-through green channel marked a big moment: those with nothing to declare could pass without their bags being opened for scrutiny. Also Read: Centre eyes tighter customs rules to curb smuggling by 'import carriers' What's puzzling is why so many outdated rules persist. There's a limit of about ₹50,000 on the value of goods an Indian resident can bring in free of duty from most countries. This is absurd, given that a single iPhone can cost twice that much. Bizarrely, this allowance varies by various criteria. Such caps should be uniform and set significantly higher if the idea is to keep commercial imports out and block a route that can be used to dodge duties. As the green channel's spirit of trust-based regulation is the current government's stated approach, it would be odd if customs clearance were to get more cumbersome. But then, we have not entirely escaped our long history of protectionism. India's 150% duty on Scotch whisky remains a globally cited example, though a free trade pact with the UK is expected to lower it. Other such agreements could ease other import barriers. If we agree in principle that imports are best eased for larger trade gains, then no policy tweaks should be made that will make it harder for common travellers to comply with our rules. Also Read: Raghuram Rajan: How emerging economies can prosper in a protectionist world Airports need to welcome arrivals, not daunt them. Indian customs declaration forms, whether on paper or digital, look like an anachronism for their complexity. They are a reminder of the closed economy we once had, when packing one's personal stuff would risk flying into a customs web in India. None of this is an argument for authorities to drop their guard against smuggling. Wilful evaders of customs duty need to be nabbed, but let's also keep overreach in check. Don't let the green channel start turning red.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Crackdown against illegal immigrants has to follow due process
In the wake of the brutal terrorist attack on Pahalgam, the government has done the right thing by heightening security across the country. It has intensified operations against terrorists and given greater urgency to increasing surveillance along the borders. Last month, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order asking states and Union Territories to detect and deport foreigners, especially people from Bangladesh and Myanmar, living illicitly in the country. The Centre's instructions have prompted several states to intensify their ongoing operations against suspected illegal immigrants. From the West Bengal government's allegation, earlier this year, of BSF's laxity against Bangladeshi 'infiltrators' to Delhi's erstwhile AAP government's drive against 'illegal Bangladeshi' students to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's frequent diatribes against immigrants from India's eastern neighbour, the issue of illegal immigration has raised its head time and again in the heat and dust of Indian politics. The Centre and state governments must understand that the current moment has a far more compelling imperative than polarising politics — the two should be kept scrupulously apart. However, reports in this newspaper shine a light on the disquieting tendency among authorities to ignore court proceedings — and take the short cut bypassing due process. Among the people caught in the no man's land between India and Bangladesh is an Assam school teacher whose citizenship case is being heard by the Supreme Court. And, days ago, a 50-year-old woman was pushed into Bangladesh and then brought back after her lawyer flagged that she was legally in the clear. In Assam and several other regions of the Northeast, the movement of people across the mostly porous border across Bangladesh is an immensely sensitive and fraught issue. On the one hand, the movement of people across regions has a long history that predates Partition. On the other hand, the anti-outsider sentiment was the major trigger for the Assam agitation and has often led to violence in the state. In recent years, the state's BJP government has stoked anxieties around identity and demography by framing the narrative in communal terms. The state government's aggressive use of the Foreigner's Tribunal – it sets March 25, 1971, as the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam – has left thousands with an uncertain future. The onus is almost always on the accused to prove their citizenship. Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma has cited a Supreme Court directive of February in support of the latest anti-immigration drive. However, Sarma's past pronouncements — especially his use of dog whistles, 'land jihad' and 'flood jihad,' to refer to the migrant problem — do not inspire confidence. The Assam CM has said that the recent drive does not target people who have appealed to the courts after the revocation of their nationality by a tribunal. Last week, however, the Gauhati High Court had to intercede on behalf of two such people, whose families fear that they may have been 'pushed out' to Bangladesh. That Myanmar and Bangladesh are in political turmoil today doesn't make the task any easier. That should not, however, be the rationale for rounding off suspected illegal migrants and pushing them across borders. On immigration crackdown, the short-cut will always be more expedient — most of the victims are vulnerable and without adequate representation — but due process, even if it is a long haul, needs to be followed and seen to be followed. Only then will it engender a security that endures.
