Latest news with #OMs
United News of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC strikes down ex-post facto environmental clearances, bars Centre from issuing future approvals
New Delhi, May 16 (UNI) In a landmark decision with significant environmental implications, the Supreme Court on Friday categorically barred the Central Government from granting ex-post facto Environmental Clearances (EC) for any projects in the future. The Court also invalidated past Office Memoranda (OMs) and notifications that permitted such retrospective approvals, especially in the mining sector. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the ruling, holding that prior environmental clearance is a non-negotiable legal prerequisite under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Reading out the operative part of the judgment, Justice Oka said, 'There are no equities in favour of those who committed gross illegalities without obtaining prior ECs. These are not cases of ignorance. The violators include companies, real estate developers, PSUs, and the mining industries. They knowingly proceeded without mandatory clearances,' Justice Oka said. The Court declared that the 2017 notification, the 2021 Office Memorandum, and all related circulars or orders enabling ex-post facto environmental clearance were illegal and hence struck down. It also restrained the Centre from issuing any future guidelines or notifications that would permit such retrospective approvals. However, the Court clarified that ECs already granted under the now-struck-down 2017 and 2021 directives would remain valid and unaffected by the judgment. The ruling came in response to a batch of petitions led by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, which contested the legal basis of the government's Standard Operating Procedures that allowed the regularisation of projects already operational without prior EC. The petitioners highlighted that the term 'prior environmental clearance' appeared 34 times in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, underlining its compulsory nature. The Centre had defended its position by arguing that the 2021 OM and earlier 2017 notification were necessary to deal with legacy violations, claiming that a rigid interpretation would lead to mass demolitions and disrupt essential services. The government further asserted that these instruments were aligned with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and intended to assess and mitigate environmental damage. However, the Supreme Court rejected this rationale, reiterating that legal compliance cannot be an afterthought, particularly in matters concerning environmental protection. The Court's interim stay on the impugned OMs, granted in January 2024, has now been made permanent with this final verdict. The decision sets a precedent for stricter adherence to environmental laws and curbs the recurring practice of regularising violations post-facto. UNI SNG RN
New Indian Express
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Thermal plants can't change coal source sans green nod: NGT
CHENNAI: The southern bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has quashed key office memorandums (OMs) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which had allowed thermal power plants to change their coal sources without obtaining a fresh environmental clearance. The bench, comprising judicial member Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and expert member K Satyagopal, observed that OMs created de facto exemptions from statutory requirements and were issued without public consultation or scientific assessment. 'The OMs are issued without any scientific study or in fact assessment. The legal character of the OMs is administrative but their effect is legislative, creating de facto exemptions from legal mandates,' the bench stated. The tribunal found the exemptions inconsistent with Regulation 7(2) of the EIA Notification, 2006, which mandates prior environmental clearance if any change in raw material mix leads to increased pollution load. It warned that allowing unchecked transitions between coal sources, especially from imported to domestic coal or vice versa, could raise emission. The ministry defended the move as a procedural streamlining effort to promote domestic coal, but the NGT ruled that environmental concerns must not be compromised for operational flexibility.
