Supreme Court Strikes Down Environment Ministry Regularisation Route for Illegal Units
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India recently struck down two controversial notifications issued by the Union Environment Ministry that allowed industrial units to operate without prior environmental clearance — labeling them as “illegal.” This landmark judgment reinforces the principle of “prior approval” under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, and questions the government’s efforts to retrospectively regularise violations. 
Introduction
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that industries must obtain environmental clearances before beginning operations. The judgment came in response to two notifications — one in 2017 and another in 2021 — that permitted illegal industrial units a “one-time” six-month window to apply for clearances, provided they paid a penalty. The Court ruled that these attempts undermined environmental laws and lacked strong legal foundations.
Key Issues and Background
1. Regularisation Without Prior Clearance
The 2017 and 2021 notifications allowed projects to continue operations and later seek clearances, essentially bypassing the mandatory “prior approval” process. These units were to pay fines for regularisation.
2. Procedural Shortcuts and Executive Orders
Instead of amending the Environment Protection Act (EIA), 2006 through Parliament, the Centre opted for executive orders, raising serious legal and environmental concerns.
3. Failed Past Attempts
Similar attempts under the UPA government in 2012 and 2013 were also quashed by the Jharkhand High Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT), showing a consistent judicial stance against such measures.
Key Observations
-
Violation of the ‘Prior Clearance’ Principle
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that prior environmental clearance is not negotiable and must be obtained before operations begin. -
Limited Deterrent Effect of Penalties
The Court noted that paying fines to regularise illegal units had a minimal deterrent effect. In fact, this system may have encouraged more violations under the assumption of future regularisation. -
Economic Arguments Not Justifiable
The Centre defended its notifications citing disruption to employment and functioning industries. However, the Court stated that environmental law must not be compromised even under economic pressure. -
Continued Violations Despite Previous Judgments
Despite earlier court rulings, illegal operations continued, reflecting a systemic failure in environmental enforcement. -
Danger of Legal Loopholes
The Court highlighted that clever legal mechanisms and crafty executive actions to regularise illegality send a wrong message and weaken law enforcement.
Challenges and the Way Forward
Challenges
-
Weak Enforcement: Authorities fail to proactively monitor and stop violations.
-
Policy Loopholes: Frequent executive relaxations dilute environmental laws.
-
Economic Justifications: Governments often cite job losses and industrial impact to justify environmental compromise.
Way Forward
-
Amend the EIA Act through Parliament to address policy gaps.
-
Strengthen the enforcement mechanisms at both Centre and State levels.
-
Ensure real-time monitoring of industries using technology.
-
Create a strong deterrent through harsher penalties and criminal prosecution.
-
Educate industries on the importance of compliance for long-term sustainability.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision is a crucial step towards protecting India’s fragile environmental framework. It sets a precedent that industrial growth cannot come at the cost of environmental degradation. Mere payment of fines cannot be a substitute for lawful conduct. As India continues to balance development with sustainability, this ruling must serve as a reminder that environmental protection is not optional — it is essential.
5 Questions and Answers
Q1: What did the Supreme Court strike down recently regarding environmental laws?
A: Two notifications by the Environment Ministry that allowed illegal industrial units to pay fines and continue operations without prior environmental clearance.
Q2: Why were these notifications criticized?
A: They undermined the legal requirement for “prior approval” and offered a backdoor for violators to regularise operations.
Q3: What principle did the Court uphold?
A: The principle of “prior environmental clearance” under the EIA Notification of 2006.
Q4: What impact did the judgment have on previously regularised units?
A: The Court clarified that units regularised under the 2017 and 2021 rules would remain unaffected, but future violations cannot be excused.
Q5: What does the ruling suggest for future policy?
A: Governments must amend environmental laws through Parliament and ensure that enforcement mechanisms are not bypassed for economic convenience.
