Before doors closed, 55 projects benefited from 2017-2021 environmental amnesty
LAST JANUARY, when the Supreme Court stayed a 2021 office memorandum (OM) to expand a window of amnesty opened by the Ministry of Environment in 2017, it did not question the validity of the 2017 notification.
On Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the original 2017 notification and the 2021 OM — along with all circulars, orders, and notifications issued to give effect to these two — as 'illegal'.
It thus closed the doors on the 'ex-post facto' route for granting Environmental Clearances (EC) 'in any form or manner' to projects that started work without obtaining a mandatory prior environmental clearance or exceeded the limits set under the clearance conditions.
While sources in the Environment Ministry did not rule out the possibility of a review petition, Friday's order follows two earlier Supreme Court judgments — Common Cause versus Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals versus Rohit Prajapati (2020) — that also held that the concept of ex-post facto clearance is against the fundamental principle of environmental jurisprudence and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 which requires a prior environment clearance.
Conceived as a one-time opportunity in 2017, ex-post facto clearance became routine when the ministry notified a 'Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for identification and handling of violation cases' in July 2021.
In its various submissions before the Supreme Court, the Environment Ministry argued there was no existing procedure under the rules for dealing with projects that started work without prior clearance, and that the July 2021 OM was issued to deal with violation cases not covered by the 2017 notification.
Arguing that the move was consistent with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the polluter pays principle, the ministry reasoned that denying developers an opportunity to regularise their projects would lead to demolition, which would also cause environmental damage.
Days after ordering a stay in January 2024, the Supreme Court underlined that the stay would 'not come in the way' of considering proposals for modifying EC conditions if the EC was granted before July 2021.
On Friday, noting that 'the object of the 2017 notification appears to be to protect the industries and entities which violated the EIA notification,' the apex court order observed: 'The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of the environment?'
By the time the stay was imposed last year, the Ministry of Environment had already cleared over 100 projects under a novel 'violation category'. These projects include Coal, iron and bauxite mines, a greenfield airport, multiple distilleries, steel and iron factories, industrial estates, cement plants and limestone quarries, chemical units and building construction sites etc.
Besides clearing over 100 projects, the ministry also issued terms of reference (ToR) for impact assessment to at least another 150 projects. Once a project is considered fit for appraisal, ToR is issued for assessing its environmental impact and a final decision on the clearance depends on that assessment.
Project developers who benefitted over the last six years include Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jaypee Cement, UltraTech Cement, Ramco Cements, Bhushan Steel Limited (Tata Steel), Steel Authority of India, Godrej Agrovet Limited, Hindustan Copper, Lloyds Metals & Energy Limited, Hindustan Marble, Artemis Hospital, Pushpawati Singhania Hospital, Spaze Towers, Hotel Leela Venture Ltd, Special Protection Group etc.
As reported by The Indian Express on February 20, 2024, Ministry records show that an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) set up to deal with violation cases met 46 times between June 2017 and June 2021 and recommended at least 112 projects. Of this, at least 55 were granted environmental clearances. The rest have been issued terms of reference (ToR) for environmental impact assessment and remediation plans.
Jay Mazoomdaar is an investigative reporter focused on offshore finance, equitable growth, natural resources management and biodiversity conservation. Over two decades, his work has been recognised by the International Press Institute, the Ramnath Goenka Foundation, the Commonwealth Press Union, the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust, the Asian College of Journalism etc.
Mazoomdaar's major investigations include the extirpation of tigers in Sariska, global offshore probes such as Panama Papers, Robert Vadra's land deals in Rajasthan, India's dubious forest cover data, Vyapam deaths in Madhya Pradesh, mega projects flouting clearance conditions, Nitin Gadkari's link to e-rickshaws, India shifting stand on ivory ban to fly in African cheetahs, the loss of indigenous cow breeds, the hydel rush in Arunachal Pradesh, land mafias inside Corbett, the JDY financial inclusion scheme, an iron ore heist in Odisha, highways expansion through the Kanha-Pench landscape etc. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
41 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC allows NBE to schedule NEET-PG 2025 exam on August 3
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed an application filed by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) seeking permission to schedule the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-PG 2025 on August 3. A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih took note of the submission that August 3 was the earliest possible available date given by its technology partner for conducting the NEET-PG 2025 examination in terms of the recent apex court order. Allowing the application filed by the NBE to conduct the NEET-PG 2025 examination on August 3, the Justice Mishra-led Bench clarified that no further time extension will be allowed by the top court. In an order passed on May 30, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of conducting the NEET-PG exam in two shifts and opined that holding the examination in two shifts leads to arbitrariness and cannot give a level playing field to the candidates. It ordered the NBE to make necessary arrangements for holding the NEET-PG 2025 examination in one shift, duly ensuring that complete transparency is maintained and secure centres are identified and commissioned. "The question papers in two shifts can never be of the same difficulty level. Last year, it (NEET-PG 2024) may have been held in two shifts in the facts and circumstances of that stage. But the examining body ought to have considered making arrangements for holding the examination in one shift,' the Supreme Court had remarked. The apex court was dealing with a clutch of petitions challenging the lack of transparency in the conduct of the NEET-PG examination. In their plea filed before the apex court, NEET-PG aspirants claimed that the introduction of two shifts, normalisation method, and change in the tie-breaker criterion affected medical students adversely. The petitioners said that NEET-PG had never been held in two shifts before and had always remained a single-shift and single-day examination to ensure a uniform examination standard and fairness of the national test.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
RBI Guv flags crypto concerns, says it may hamper financial stability
RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra on Friday said the central bank is concerned about cryptocurrencies as it can hamper financial stability. Malhotra was replying to a question during a media interaction post the RBI monetary policy about the developments in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's observation on crypto currency last month. "There is no new development as far as crypto is concerned. A committee of the government is looking after this. Of course, as you are aware, we are concerned about crypto because that can hamper financial stability and monetary policy," Malhotra said. The Supreme Court has last month asked the Centre to formulate a "clear cut" policy on regulating cryptocurrency, while underlining its impact on the economy. A Supreme Court bench termed the Bitcoin trade as an illicit trade more or less like "hawala" business. India is currently working on a discussion paper for cryptocurrencies and an inter-ministerial group (IMG), comprising officials from RBI, Sebi and finance ministry, is looking into global norms. In absence of any regulation, cryptocurrency is not yet illegal in India. The discussion paper will give the stakeholders an opportunity to give their views before India decides on its policy stance on cryptocurrencies. In 2022, the government announced a flat 30 per cent tax on gains arising from cryptocurrencies. Taxing income from cryptocurrencies does not necessarily and explicitly legalise cryptocurrencies. Currently, crypto assets are unregulated in India. Here cryptocurrencies are regulated from the perspective of anti-money laundering law. Besides that, income tax and TDS is levied on earnings from trading in such virtual digital assets. Also, GST is levied on cryptocurrency exchanges. It may be noted that, on March 4, 2021, the Supreme Court had set aside an RBI circular of April 6, 2018, prohibiting banks and entities regulated by it from providing services in relation to virtual currencies.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Vodafone Idea vs SC dispute: Akshaya Moondra's AGR relief remark raises eyebrows; triggers debate on top court's ruling
NEW DELHI: Vodafone Idea CEO Akshaya Moondra's recent statement about continuing talks with the government seeking relief for adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues have triggered legal backlash, with experts saying the comments are misleading. His statement came just days after a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court , comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, on May 19 dismissed Article 32 petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel, and the Tata Group. The petitions had sought waivers on adjusted gross revenue (AGR) interest and penalties, which amount to nearly Rs 80,000 crore. During a June 2 earnings call, Moondra said, 'As far as the government relief is concerned, I think we are engaged with the government... What the government will do, I cannot comment on their behalf. But definitely post the judgment, we continue with our engagement with the government to find a solution to the AGR matter.' The court termed the petitions "misconceived" and said that the AGR issue had already been settled through its 2019 judgment and subsequent review and curative petitions. 'It will be a very sad day if the highest Court of this Country starts entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the same subject matter after the curative petitions are dismissed,' the bench observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 3BHK Transformation Possible for ₹4.5 Lakh? HomeLane Get Quote Undo Vodafone Idea's attempt to re-engage the government after such a clear verdict triggered criticism from the legal fraternity. Advocate Gaurav Gupta said the May 19 order reaffirmed that AGR dues were final. He added that any attempt by the government to now offer relief would be against the law established by the Supreme Court. 'Once an issue is decided by the highest court, the options for both the company and government are limited, as the executive cannot override the law established by the Supreme Court,' said Advocate Ashish Dixit. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Vodafone Idea in court, had conceded during the hearing that all legal avenues, including review and curative petitions, had been exhausted. He requested the court to let the government consider the company's representation. But the bench reminded him, 'If the government wants to help you, we are not coming in the way; who is stopping them from having a look at the representation?' However, Rohatgi admitted the government had refused to do so, citing the binding nature of the court's earlier rulings. The Solicitor General also confirmed that the executive was unable to intervene due to the 2019 verdict and its finality. Despite this, Moondra's remarks suggested that Vodafone Idea continued to expect some resolution from the Centre. Legal experts criticised this as potentially misleading to the public and shareholders. Chief Justice BR Gavai recently warned against distortion of judicial remarks, noting that such misinterpretations can negatively affect public understanding of court rulings. Advocate Mohit Paul reminded that the AGR definition issue was settled in October 2019, when the Supreme Court ruled it includes all revenue, telecom or otherwise, and confirmed the telcos must pay Rs 1.56 trillion including penalties and interest. Since then, all legal efforts, including review and curative petitions, were dismissed. When the telcos filed a fresh round of Article 32 writ petitions in May 2025, the Supreme Court did not entertain them, stating 'everything has its own limits.' Rohatgi's final attempt to withdraw the petition or at least insert a statement allowing petitioners to approach the government was also rejected.
