Source: Indian Express

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court gave a decision to invalidate a notification of 2020 by the Environment Ministry, exempting the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects from obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) in the case of Noble M Paikada v. Union of India (2024). It marks a significant development in environmental governance in India.

• "Ordinary earth" typically refers to the common soil found on the Earth's surface. It's composed of a mixture of minerals, organic matter, water, air, and countless microorganisms.

What is the Background of the 2020 Exemption?

• In March 2020, the Environment Ministry introduced an exemption for the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads and railways, from the requirement of obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC).
• This move was in line with previous notifications exempting certain categories of projects from EC requirements.
• The rationale behind the exemption purportedly aimed to assist various sectors including potters, farmers, and non-mining activities. Additionally, it aligned with amendments made to mining laws earlier in 2020.

What are the Challenges to the Exemption?

• The exemption faced legal challenges primarily on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional principles.
• Critics argued that allowing indiscriminate earth extraction without prior EC undermined environmental safeguards and violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding the lack of public consultation and the perceived favoritism towards private miners and contractors, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.

What are Government Response and Judicial Intervention?

• When the notification was challenged before National Green Tribunal (NGT), it held that “The exemption should strike balance and instead of being blanket exemption, it needs to be hedged by appropriate safeguards such as the process of excavation and quantum”.
• Despite the NGT directing the Ministry to review the exemption within three months, the government delayed action until compelled by the Supreme Court.
• The Ministry's subsequent issuance of an Office Memorandum and notification in August 2023, attempting to regulate the exemption, failed to address key concerns.
• The Supreme Court, in its ruling, criticized the lack of clarity regarding the definition of 'linear projects', absence of safeguards, and the rushed nature of the notification.

What are Implications of the Court's Decision?

• The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the arbitrary exemption signifies a victory for environmental governance and judicial oversight.
• It underscores the importance of adhering to due process, transparency, and environmental safeguards in policy formulation.
• Moreover, this ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional principles and ensuring accountable governance, particularly in matters concerning environmental protection.

What are Past Precedents and Ongoing Scrutiny?

• The court's decision aligns with previous instances where exemptions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 faced judicial scrutiny.
• Instances such as the quashing of exemptions for building and construction activities in 2018 and challenges to grant ex-post facto clearances highlight a recurring pattern of attempts to bypass environmental regulations.
• The ongoing vigilance by the judiciary underscores the need for comprehensive and transparent environmental governance frameworks.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's annulment of the Environment Ministry's exemption for linear projects reflects a commitment to upholding environmental norms and constitutional principles. Moving forward, there is a need for policymakers to prioritize sustainability and inclusivity in decision-making processes, while also respecting judicial scrutiny and public participation in environmental matters.