and mining—to obtain prior environmental clearance from central or state-level authorities. In theory, this ensures that development is environmentally sound, socially just, and legally compliant.

In practice, however, this process is increasingly under scrutiny. In recent months, several high-profile cases have exposed glaring loopholes in the EC regime. A 2023 judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) quashed the EC granted to a large cement project in Himachal Pradesh, citing “failure to conduct a proper cumulative impact assessment” and “violation of public consultation norms.” This came on the heels of a Supreme Court verdict in Adivasi Majdoor Sangh v. Union of India (2023), where the Court underscored that environmental clearances cannot be a “rubber stamp of approval” and must involve meaningful application of mind, especially when forests, tribal rights, and biodiversity are at stake.

The larger concern remains the dilution of public participation and scientific rigour in the EC process. The Draft EIA Notification, 2020—yet to be finalized—proposed regressive changes such as post-facto approvals (legalizing violations after the fact), reducing the number of projects requiring prior scrutiny, and limiting the scope of public hearings. Despite strong opposition from environmental groups, legal experts, and civil society, the government has moved towards streamlining and decentralizing approvals, often at the cost of transparency and accountability.

Fast-tracked clearances under the banner of “ease of doing business” have created a parallel legal issue: judicial backlogs and environmental litigation. The NGT, though empowered under the NGT Act, 2010, remains under-resourced and burdened. Many ECs challenged before it are found to have been granted based on flawed or incomplete data. Yet, enforcement of its orders—particularly in politically sensitive projects—is inconsistent.

One of the most contentious aspects is the conflict between environmental protection and economic urgency. In the 2022 case of Indian Council for Forest Conservation v. MoEFCC, the Delhi High Court stayed a highway project near an elephant corridor, citing irreversible ecological damage. While the project had received all necessary ECs, the court observed that “compliance on paper does not guarantee sustainability on the ground.”

Further complicating the landscape is the erosion of independence in expert appraisal committees (EACs). These bodies, meant to impartially assess environmental and social impacts, are often staffed with bureaucrats or members lacking domain expertise. Critics argue that this weakens the checks and balances envisaged in environmental governance.

What is urgently needed is not merely a tightening of laws, but a restoration of the principle of environmental justice. This involves:

1. Strengthening the public hearing process—making it inclusive, multilingual, and accessible to tribal and marginalized communities.

2. Restoring scientific integrity—mandating independent impact assessments by neutral agencies.

3. Empowering the NGT—with more benches, better staffing, and robust enforcement mechanisms.

4. Creating transparent project databases—with real-time EC status, compliance reports, and citizen feedback.

Above all, there must be a recognition that short-term economic gains cannot come at the cost of irreversible ecological loss. Forests, rivers, coasts, and mountains are not merely physical resources—they are the life-support systems of millions. Laws that protect them must be implemented not just in letter, but in spirit.

India’s development must be sustainable. If environmental clearance becomes a mere bureaucratic hurdle, rather than a genuine process of environmental accountability, the nation risks destroying what it seeks to build. The judiciary has done its part in raising red flags. It is now time for the legislature and executive to realign development with ecological stewardship.