New Delhi: The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a Union government notification that exempted building and construction projects, including industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with a built-up area up to 150,000 square meters (approximately 1.6 million square feet), from mandatory environmental clearance (EC).
A bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka on Monday issued the stay order in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The PIL challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) notification issued on January 29, arguing that it weakened the existing regulations for construction projects.
Prior to the notification, the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), 2006, mandated prior EC for constructions exceeding 20,000 square meters.
Vanashakti, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Vanshdeep Dalmia, argued that this was the fourth attempt by the Centre to provide exemptions for building projects, citing similar moves in 2014, 2016, and 2018.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The 2014 and 2016 attempts were challenged successfully in court, and the 2018 notification was stayed by the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court bench, which also included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, acknowledged the nationwide implications of the notification and issued a notice while staying its operation.
The January 29 notification altered the EIA, 2006, by exempting projects up to 150,000 square meters if they were industrial sheds, schools, colleges, or hostels, and by declaring that “general conditions” under the EIA would not apply to these projects.
Vanashakti argued that exempting these conditions would negatively impact project appraisals in ecologically sensitive zones, protected areas, critically polluted areas, and projects near interstate boundaries.
A day after the notification, the MoEFCC issued an office memorandum (OM) expanding the definition of “educational institutions” and “industrial sheds” to include private technical institutions, professional academies, universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds housing machinery or raw materials.
The PIL argued that the notification and OM diluted key provisions of the EIA, 2006, and could lead to significant environmental damage due to unregulated construction activities.
Sankaranarayanan emphasized the potential for increased air and water pollution. He also contended that the notification violated a 2003 Supreme Court judgment related to the Maily Yamuna case, which initially highlighted the need to include the building and construction sector within the EIA regime.
The petition further argued that the notification violated the Environment Protection Rules of 1986 by not providing sufficient justification for the changes.