Clause 14(2) of the IBID in conjunction with the Annex. According to section 3 (e) of the Mining and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, “minor minerals” means the constituent elements, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral that the central government may declare as a mineral minor by notice to the Official Gazette. Stellina JOLLY, “Draft EIA Notification 2020 is out of sync with state practices international law” (The Wire, July 31, 2020) ; Siddharth SINGH, “The Problematic Story of Draft EIE Notification 2020” (Counter Currents, August 2, 2020) ; Scroll STAFF, “More than 60 former bureaucrats urge the Centre to withdraw the draft directive on environmental impact assessment” (Scroll, 12. July 2020) . The 2006 EIA notification replaced the 1994 notification. The public consultation formalized by the 19972 amendment was launched in 2006 as an integral part of the EIA.23 The 2006 EIA notification launched the decentralization process to delegate powers to state governments. Schedule 1 projects have been divided into two categories, Category “A” and Category “B”. Category “A” requires the approval of the central government and category “B” requires the approval of the state government. However, the state government must determine whether a Category “B” project falls under category “B1” or “B2”. Projects in category “B1” require the preparation of EIA reports, while other projects are called projects in category “B2”. No EIA report is required for these. A Disaster Management Plan (DMP) or Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is an official document that identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and establishes pre-planned measures to minimize property damage and death. The DMP/EAP specifies the measures that the dam owner should take to mitigate or mitigate problems at the dam site as well as in the areas downstream of the dam.
It contains procedures and information to assist the dam owner in sending early warning and notification messages to the competent emergency management authorities, i.e. district judges/collectors, armed forces, paramilitary forces, project authorities and other central/state authorities. It also includes flood maps to show emergency management authorities in critical areas for emergency relief and rescue operations. This article critically evaluates the draft EIA notification. It is argued that the draft EIA application dilutes the premise of the EIA itself and promotes the violation of the basic principles that are part of national and international environmental jurisprudence. One of the main dilutions is the removal of several activities from the scope of public consultation and EIA. Projects listed in category “B2” have been explicitly exempted from the requirement for an EIA.8 Projects in this category include offshore and onshore oil, gas and shale exploration, hydroelectric projects up to 25 MW, irrigation projects between 2,000 and 10,000 hectares of command area, all inland waterway projects, the modernisation or widening of motorways between 25 km and 100 km with defined parameters, and specific building construction and spatial planning projects.9 These projects may require, for example, deforestation or dredging of large rivers, but do not require prior authorisation for such activities. The draft EIA notification controversially allows projects to obtain retrospective authorisations.10 The provision on ex post facto authorisations can be considered a flagrant violation of the precautionary principle and runs counter to the very purpose of an EIA framework. The draft EIA notification stipulates that knowledge of a violation will only be taken into account by a report from the government or the project developer or on a swedish basis, completely excluding any role of public participation in decision-making. It is concluded that the draft EIA notification, when adopted in its current form, will have serious consequences for environmental policy in India by denying the precautionary principle, watering down the due diligence process and strengthening government discretion, while limiting public engagement in environmental protection.
In addition, the draft notification contradicts the new principle of non-regression. International Law Commission, Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its fifty-third session, Prevention of transboundary harm caused by hazardous activities with commentary (23 April-1 June and 2 July-10 August 2001) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission Part Two A/CN.4/SER. A/2001/Add.1(Part 2) 148, articles 7, 159, paragraph 9 . On 23 March 2020, the Indian Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (`the Ministry`) published the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notice for 2020 (`the draft EIA notification`), which aims to replace the existing 2006 EIA notification. The stated intention of the draft EIA notification is to consolidate the progressive changes to the 2006 notification, streamline and streamline processes and implement the decisions of various tribunals. The draft EIA notification has been made public with a 60-day deadline for public comment.1 Given the strong support for a longer period to allow for wider public consultation, the consultation period has been extended until 30 June 2020.2 Given the national covid-19 lockdown This extension has been approved by the Delhi Supreme Court for effective public consultation in as long as insufficiently taken into account, and the deadline to receive objections or proposals has been extended to 11 August 2020.3 According to the 2011 census in India, 121 languages and 270 identifiable mother tongues are spoken in the country. See 2011 Census of India, Language: India, States and Union Territories (Table C-16) . In particular, the Ministry had adopted an opinion issued on 14 March 2017 allowing projects to apply for an environmental permit after their operation, construction or modernization in violation of the conditions of the environmental impact assessment.71 It provided for a period of six months to apply for permits a posteriori from project promoters.72 This provision elicited significant negative reactions because it did not respect the violation of the Principle. precautionary. However, the Madras Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the 2017 submission on the basis of the Advocate General`s two remarks that (a) a public hearing is included during the EIA process of these projects and (b) it is a one-off measure.73 The institutionalisation of a single exception as a general standard by the draft EIA notification is contrary to the concept and purpose of the EIA itself and cannot legally not legally are justified. Vaibhav GANJAPURE, “MPCB`s Sand Mining Public Hearings on Zoom Challenged” (Times of India, June 10, 2020) . This article attempted to examine the outstanding legal architecture of the draft EIA notification issued by the Ministry on 23 March 2020, which caused a national outcry.
Many of its provisions have been shown to dilute an already problematic EIA system in India, one plagued by accountability gaps, lack of transparency in the environmental licensing process and low-quality opportunities for public participation. Stella JAMES and Nayana UDAYASHANKAR, “From 2006 to 2020: The Ongoing Problems of the EIA” (Socio-Legal Review, October 19, 2020) .