CB BureauThe system of granting environmental
clearances to industrial and other projects has come under sharp criticism from the
Supreme Court (SC).
According to the court, the environment ministry had been
letting private companies pay ‘a packet’ to their favourite experts to assess
the environmental impacts of their projects and obtain approvals on their
basis. The court said the system was akin to ‘paying the piper to call the tune’.
The SC snapped at the ministry after considering the fact that
in most of the cases, Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) are prepared by
consultants hired by the companies themselves. The EIAs so prepared are presented
before expert committees of environment ministry which decides on granting
approvals to a project.
The assessment envisages a comprehensive inspection of how a
particular project would affect the biodiversity, flora and fauna, ambient air
and water quality, catchment-area treatment, sub-soil water of the area in
which a project is proposed, and other relevant issues.
A special bench led by Chief Justice SH Kapadia “while
hearing a petition challenging the approval granted to French company Lafarge to
mine limestone in Meghalaya” asked the environment ministry whether it had
ever wondered as to how a consultant hired by a company would give an adverse
impact assessment report after getting ‘its packet of money’.
Justice Aftab Alam, who accompanies Kapadia and Justice KS
Radhakrishnan on the bench, noticed that every report placed before it was done
by agencies that were employed by Lafarge.
Justice Alam asked Attorney General (AG) GE
Vahanvati whether any ‘project proponent (company) would pay a packet of money
to get an adverse report.’
‘But this is how the EIA has gone on since 1994 (when the
first EIA Notification was issued),’ Vahanvati replied.
To this, the AG said he had already advised Environment
Minister Jairam Ramesh to have an independent mechanism, and as of now, the
ministry had drawn a list of accredited agencies who could conduct EIAs. He
said the government had various layers of control.
Clarifying that the court was not saying that any of the
reports were ‘perverse’, Chief Justice Kapadia joined Justice Alam to point out
that the court was only interested in ensuring that better procedures were in place.
At this point, senior advocate Fali Nariman, appearing for
Lafarge, said a separate department or infrastructure by the government for
just conducting EIAs would involve enormous costs.