This article is written by  Okediji Prosper, University of Abuja, Law, Year 5, during her internship at LeDroit India

ABSTRACT

Environmental Impact Assessment has emerged as a cornerstone of environmental governance in India, serving as a critical tool for balancing developmental imperatives with ecological sustainability. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the legal framework governing EIA clearances under Indian law, with particular emphasis on the procedural and substantive mechanisms available for judicial review. The study analyzes the statutory provisions under the Environment Protection Act 1986, the EIA Notification 2006 (as amended), and relevant judicial precedents that have shaped environmental jurisprudence in India.

Through an examination of landmark Supreme Court decisions including T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, and recent cases like Alembic Pharmaceuticals, this article explores the grounds for challenging EIA clearances, including procedural irregularities, inadequate public consultation, violation of precautionary principles, and substantive deficiencies in environmental assessment. The analysis highlights the evolving role of Indian courts in enforcing environmental accountability while addressing the tension between economic development and ecological preservation. Keywords: Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA Clearance, Judicial Review, Environmental Jurisprudence, Precautionary Principle, Public Participation.

Keywords: Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA Clearance, Judicial Review, 

Environmental Governance, Precautionary Principle, Public Participation

SCOPE OF ARTICLE

• Constitutional and statutory framework of environmental law in India
• Evolution and structure of EIA regime under the Environment Protection Act 1986
• Categories and procedures for obtaining environmental clearances
• Legal grounds for challenging EIA clearances including procedural and substantive violations
• Analysis of landmark judicial pronouncements on environmental clearances
• Role of public participation and access to environmental justice
• Contemporary challenges and recent developments in EIA law
• Comparative analysis of environmental clearance mechanisms

1. INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Impact Assessment mechanism represents one of the most significant regulatory innovations in environmental law, designed to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into developmental decision-making processes from the earliest stages. In India, the EIA framework has evolved from its nascent beginnings in the 1970s to become a comprehensive system of environmental governance that seeks to balance the imperatives of economic development with the constitutional mandate of environmental protection enshrined in Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

The legal foundation for environmental clearances in India rests primarily on the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowered the Central Government to take measures for protecting and improving environmental quality. Pursuant to this statutory authority, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued the EIA Notification 2006, which established a detailed procedural framework for environmental clearances. This notification has subsequently undergone multiple amendments, reflecting the dynamic nature of environmental regulation in response to emerging challenges and judicial interpretations.

The significance of EIA clearances extends beyond mere regulatory compliance; they embody the operationalization of crucial environmental principles including the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the principle of sustainable development. These principles have been consistently recognized and applied by Indian courts in their interpretation of environmental law, most notably in the landmark judgment of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, where the Supreme Court articulated the constitutional status of environmental protection and the foundational principles governing environmental law in India.

The power to challenge environmental clearances in courts represents a crucial mechanism for ensuring accountability in environmental governance and protecting the rights of affected communities. Indian courts, particularly the National Green Tribunal (NGT) established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, have emerged as important forums for environmental justice, developing a robust jurisprudence on the standards applicable to environmental clearances and the grounds upon which such clearances can be challenged or set aside.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 Constitutional Provisions

The constitutional foundation for environmental protection in India was significantly strengthened through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which introduced Article 48A in the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 51A(g) in the Fundamental Duties. Article 48A mandates that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Correspondingly, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently interpreted these provisions expansively, reading them in conjunction with Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life. In the seminal case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395, the Court held that the right to life includes the right to live in a healthy environment. This interpretative approach has formed the basis for subsequent environmental jurisprudence, establishing that environmental protection is not merely a policy objective but a constitutional imperative enforceable through judicial review.

2.2 The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy, marking a watershed moment in Indian environmental legislation. The Act provides comprehensive powers to the Central Government for environmental protection and represents the primary statutory instrument through which environmental clearance requirements are imposed. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to take all measures necessary for protecting and improving environmental quality, including laying down standards, restricting areas for industrial operations, and regulating environmental pollutants.

Section 5 of the Act authorizes the Central Government to issue directions to any person, officer, or authority for compliance with environmental norms. The Act’s penal provisions, contained in Sections 15 to 17, provide for stringent punishment including imprisonment and fines for violations of its provisions or directions issued thereunder. The constitutional validity and wide amplitude of powers conferred by this Act were upheld by the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212, which recognized the Act as embodying principles of strict liability and absolute liability in environmental matters.

2.3 EIA Notification 2006 and Subsequent Amendments

The EIA Notification 2006, issued under Section 3 and Section 6 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, establishes a comprehensive framework for environmental clearances in India. The notification categorizes developmental projects into Category A and Category B based on their potential environmental impact, with Category A projects requiring clearance from the Central Government (MoEFCC) and Category B projects requiring clearance from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

The notification prescribes a four-stage process for obtaining environmental clearance: screening, scoping, public consultation, and appraisal. The screening stage determines whether a project requires EIA study. The scoping stage defines the terms of reference for EIA study. Public consultation involves disseminating project information and obtaining feedback from affected communities through public hearings. The appraisal stage involves examination of the EIA report by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) before granting clearance.

Significant amendments to the EIA Notification have been made over the years, including the controversial draft EIA Notification 2020 which sought to introduce several modifications including post-facto clearances and reduced public participation requirements. These amendments have been subject to considerable criticism from environmental activists and civil society organizations, leading to ongoing legal challenges. The National Green Tribunal in Goa Foundation v. Union of India O.A. No. 81/2020 examined various procedural aspects of environmental clearances and emphasized the need for strict adherence to statutory requirements.

3. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EIA CLEARANCES

3.1 Categorization of Projects

The EIA Notification 2006 establishes a binary classification system for developmental projects based on their potential environmental impact and the scale of operations. Category A projects include large-scale industrial, infrastructure, and developmental activities that require mandatory environmental clearance from the Central Government. These include mining operations above specified thresholds, thermal power plants, major highway projects, ports and harbors, and large building and construction projects exceeding 20,000 square meters.

Category B projects are those with relatively lesser environmental impact and are further subdivided into Category B1 (requiring EIA study) and Category B2 (not requiring EIA study). The classification into B1 and B2 is made by the SEIAA or SEAC based on screening. The significance of proper categorization was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) 2 SCC 1, where the Court held that incorrect categorization of projects to circumvent stringent clearance requirements constitutes a serious violation of environmental law and is grounds for setting aside the clearance.

3.2 Screening and Scoping Process

The screening stage determines whether a proposed project requires a detailed EIA study or can proceed directly to appraisal. For Category A projects, screening is based on prescribed thresholds in the Schedule to the EIA Notification. For Category B projects, the SEAC conducts screening based on prescribed criteria and categorizes projects into B1 or B2. The screening decision must be communicated to the project proponent within sixty days from the receipt of the application.

The scoping stage involves determination of detailed terms of reference for preparation of the EIA report. The SEAC or EAC prepares comprehensive terms of reference specifying the environmental parameters to be studied, baseline data requirements, impact prediction methodologies, and environmental management plan requirements. The National Green Tribunal has consistently held that the terms of reference must be comprehensive and site-specific, taking into account local environmental conditions and sensitivities. In Common Cause v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that generic terms of reference defeat the very purpose of environmental assessment.

3.3 Public Consultation and Participation

Public consultation constitutes a critical component of the EIA process, embodying principles of participatory democracy and environmental justice. The EIA Notification mandates two principal modes of public consultation: public hearings conducted by State Pollution Control Boards and written responses solicited from affected persons through newspaper advertisements. The public hearing must be conducted at the project site or in close proximity to ensure meaningful participation of affected communities.

The procedural requirements for public consultation are stringent and include advance public notice of at least thirty days, provision of executive summary of EIA report in local language, and preparation of detailed minutes of public hearing proceedings. The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC 1 held that public participation is not a mere formality but an essential procedural safeguard that ensures environmental decision-making is informed, transparent, and accountable. Defects in public consultation, including inadequate notice, suppression of public concerns, or failure to address objections raised, constitute serious procedural violations warranting invalidation of environmental clearances.

The recent amendments to the EIA Notification, particularly the proposed changes in 2020, sought to reduce public consultation requirements for certain categories of projects, leading to widespread criticism that such changes would undermine the participatory character of environmental governance. The National Green Tribunal has repeatedly emphasized that any dilution of public participation requirements must be accompanied by compelling justification and cannot be arbitrary. In Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation, the Tribunal held that meaningful public participation requires not merely conducting public hearings but ensuring that concerns raised are substantively addressed in the EIA report and clearance conditions.

4. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING EIA CLEARANCES

4.1 Procedural Violations and Non-Compliance

Procedural irregularities in the grant of environmental clearances constitute one of the most common and successful grounds for judicial challenge. These violations may occur at any stage of the clearance process including screening, scoping, public consultation, or appraisal. Courts have consistently held that procedural requirements prescribed under the EIA Notification are mandatory and not directory, and substantial non-compliance renders the clearance invalid.

Common procedural violations include: failure to conduct proper screening resulting in incorrect project categorization; inadequate or defective terms of reference that fail to address site-specific environmental concerns; deficient public consultation including inadequate notice, improper venue, or failure to provide documents in local language; non-consideration of public objections or concerns raised during consultation; failure to obtain statutory clearances from other authorities before granting environmental clearance; and commencement of construction before obtaining clearance.

In the landmark case of Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 191, the Supreme Court held that environmental clearances granted without proper assessment of ecological impact and in violation of statutory provisions are liable to be set aside. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards in environmental law serve substantive ends and cannot be dispensed with on grounds of administrative convenience or economic expediency.

4.2 Violation of Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle, recognized as a fundamental principle of environmental law in India since the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case, requires that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This principle shifts the burden of proof in environmental matters, requiring project proponents to demonstrate that their activities will not cause significant environmental harm.

Environmental clearances that fail to adequately apply the precautionary principle are vulnerable to challenge on the ground that they authorize potentially harmful activities without sufficient safeguards or evidence of safety. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, the Supreme Court elaborated on the precautionary principle’s application, holding that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment, precautionary measures must be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

The application of the precautionary principle in the context of EIA clearances requires that: environmental impact assessment must be comprehensive and scientifically rigorous; uncertainties and data gaps must be explicitly acknowledged and addressed; clearance conditions must include adequate safeguards and mitigation measures proportionate to potential risks; and in cases of significant uncertainty about environmental impacts, the benefit of doubt must favor environmental protection. The National Green Tribunal in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, set aside environmental clearances for mining projects where adequate consideration had not been given to potential impacts on ecologically sensitive areas, emphasizing that precautionary approach requires heightened scrutiny of projects in environmentally fragile zones.

4.3 Inadequate Environmental Impact Assessment

The quality and adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment report itself forms a critical ground for challenging environmental clearances. An EIA report must provide comprehensive baseline data, accurate impact prediction, detailed analysis of alternatives, and feasible mitigation measures. Deficiencies in any of these components can render the entire clearance process fundamentally flawed.

Common defects in EIA reports include: inadequate baseline data collection especially regarding biodiversity, water resources, and socio-economic conditions; failure to assess cumulative impacts of multiple projects in the same area; unrealistic or inadequate mitigation measures; failure to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed project; insufficient consideration of climate change impacts and carbon footprint; and inadequate analysis of impacts on local communities and indigenous populations.

The Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India held that environmental clearances based on inadequate or misleading EIA reports are liable to be set aside as they defeat the very purpose of the environmental assessment process. The Court emphasized that EIA is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive examination of environmental consequences, and clearances granted on the basis of deficient assessments are fundamentally vitiated.

4.4 Non-Compliance with Prior Clearances and Conditions

Environmental clearances are typically granted subject to specific conditions relating to environmental management, pollution control, monitoring, and reporting. Failure to comply with these conditions, or obtaining clearances without complying with previously imposed conditions, constitutes grounds for challenging the validity of clearances or seeking their suspension or cancellation. The jurisprudence in this area recognizes that clearance conditions are not merely advisory but constitute binding obligations enforceable through judicial process.

In Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338, the Supreme Court held that environmental clearances are granted on the premise that the project proponent will strictly comply with the conditions stipulated therein. The Court observed that flagrant violation of clearance conditions undermines the entire regulatory framework and justifies not only cancellation of clearance but also imposition of exemplary damages. The Court further held that the polluter pays principle requires that violators bear the costs of environmental restoration and compensation to affected communities.

5. JUDICIAL FORUMS AND REMEDIES

5.1 National Green Tribunal: Jurisdiction and Powers

The National Green Tribunal, established under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, represents a specialized environmental court with exclusive jurisdiction over environmental matters specified in Schedule I of the Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from implementation of laws listed in Schedule I, which includes the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, and several other environmental statutes.

Section 14 of the NGT Act confers original jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear matters relating to environmental clearances under the EIA Notification. Section 15 grants appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders granting or refusing environmental clearances. The Tribunal is empowered under Section 20 to grant relief and compensation to victims of environmental damage and to direct restoration of degraded environment. Significantly, Section 19 permits the Tribunal to apply the principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays principle in deciding cases.

The Tribunal’s composition includes judicial and expert members, combining legal expertise with scientific and technical knowledge. This unique composition enables the Tribunal to effectively assess technical aspects of environmental clearances while ensuring adherence to legal principles. In Tribunal on its own motion v. Rajasthan State Industrial Development, the Tribunal demonstrated its proactive approach by taking suo motu cognizance of environmental violations and issuing comprehensive directions for remediation.

5.2 High Courts and Supreme Court: Writ Jurisdiction

While the NGT has exclusive jurisdiction over most environmental disputes, the constitutional courts retain their writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that the establishment of NGT does not oust the jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court in matters involving constitutional questions or where fundamental rights are implicated. The writ jurisdiction is particularly relevant in cases involving broader questions of environmental policy, constitutional interpretation, or alleged violation of fundamental rights.

High Courts exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs including certiorari (for quashing clearances), mandamus (for directing authorities to perform duties), and prohibition (for preventing illegal actions). The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is invoked in matters of national importance or where constitutional rights require protection. In Bombay Environmental Action Group v. Pune Cantonment Board, the Supreme Court clarified that constitutional courts can entertain environmental matters notwithstanding the existence of NGT, particularly where questions of law or constitutional importance arise.

5.3 Locus Standi and Public Interest Litigation

Indian environmental law has significantly liberalized standing requirements, recognizing that environmental harm affects the public at large and not merely individuals with direct proprietary interests. The concept of public interest litigation, pioneered by the Indian judiciary, has been extensively applied in environmental matters. Courts have held that any person genuinely interested in environmental protection, including non-governmental organizations and concerned citizens, has locus standi to challenge environmental clearances that may cause public harm.

Section 18 of the NGT Act specifically provides that the Tribunal may permit any person to file an application if it appears to be in the interest of justice. This provision has been interpreted liberally to allow environmental organizations and affected communities to challenge clearances. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court established that in environmental matters, any public-spirited citizen can approach the court when environmental damage affects or is likely to affect the quality of life of the community.

6. LANDMARK JUDICIAL DECISIONS

6.1 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Case

The T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, ongoing since 1996, represents the most comprehensive environmental litigation in Indian legal history. Originally concerning forest conservation in the Nilgiris, the case expanded to encompass forest protection throughout India. The Supreme Court’s directions in this case have fundamentally shaped environmental governance, establishing that forest clearances require rigorous scrutiny and that developmental activities in forest areas must satisfy the requirements of both the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and environmental clearance procedures.

The Court’s orders established several crucial principles: the term ‘forest’ includes not only notified forests but also areas with forest characteristics irrespective of ownership; clearances for activities in forest areas require both forest clearance under Forest Conservation Act and environmental clearance under EIA Notification; and cumulative impact assessment of multiple projects in ecologically sensitive areas is mandatory. The Court also established the Forest Advisory Committee and Regional Empowered Committees to monitor compliance with forest conservation laws and review clearance proposals.

6.2 Alembic Pharmaceuticals Case

In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court examined the practice of project splitting to avoid stringent environmental clearance requirements. The case involved a pharmaceutical company that obtained clearance for a project by dividing it into smaller units that fell below Category A thresholds. The Supreme Court held that such practices constitute fraud on the statute and defeat the purpose of environmental assessment.

The Court laid down important principles regarding project categorization: projects must be assessed based on their total impact and cannot be artificially fragmented; clearance authorities must examine whether multiple projects are part of a larger integrated development; and clearances obtained through misrepresentation or suppression of facts are liable to be set aside. The judgment reinforced the principle that environmental clearance requirements cannot be circumvented through creative project structuring or splitting.

6.3 Sterlite Case

The litigation concerning Sterlite Industries’ copper smelter plant in Tuticorin represents one of the most significant environmental justice cases in recent times. The Madras High Court in 2013 initially set aside environmental clearances for expansion of the plant, finding serious procedural violations including defective public hearing and failure to adequately assess health impacts. The case highlighted the importance of proper public consultation and consideration of health impacts in granting environmental clearances.

Subsequently, in 2018, following public protests against pollution from the plant and police firing that resulted in deaths, the Tamil Nadu government ordered closure of the plant. The Supreme Court in 2021 in Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu examined the closure order and emphasized that environmental clearances do not grant immunity from compliance with pollution control laws and that continuation of polluting activities cannot be permitted even if clearances exist. The case underscores that environmental clearances are conditional permissions subject to ongoing compliance with environmental standards.

7. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND EMERGING ISSUES

7.1 Draft EIA Notification 2020

In March 2020, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change released a draft EIA Notification proposing significant changes to the existing framework. The draft notification introduced several controversial provisions including: post-facto environmental clearances for projects that commenced without prior clearance; reduction in public consultation period from thirty to twenty days; exemption of certain strategic projects from public consultation; and exclusion of violation cases from public consultation requirements.

These proposed changes generated widespread criticism from environmental organizations, civil society groups, and legal experts who argued that the amendments would weaken environmental safeguards and undermine public participation. Particular concern was expressed regarding the provision for post-facto clearances, which critics argued would legitimize environmental violations and encourage non-compliance. Multiple petitions were filed before the National Green Tribunal and High Courts challenging the draft notification’s provisions as being contrary to principles of environmental jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court.

7.2 Climate Change and Carbon Assessment

The integration of climate change considerations into environmental impact assessment represents an emerging challenge in Indian environmental law. While India has committed to ambitious climate targets under the Paris Agreement, the EIA framework has been slow to incorporate comprehensive carbon footprint assessment and climate impact evaluation. Recent developments indicate growing judicial recognition of the need to assess projects’ contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

In Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, though not directly concerning EIA, the National Green Tribunal acknowledged that climate change poses serious threats to environmental quality and future generations’ rights. The Tribunal emphasized the need for regulatory framework to incorporate climate considerations. There is increasing advocacy for mandatory climate impact assessment as part of EIA process, particularly for large infrastructure and energy projects. Some State Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities have begun requiring carbon footprint analysis, though this practice is not yet uniform across the country.

7.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment

The issue of cumulative environmental impacts from multiple projects in the same geographical area has gained prominence in recent environmental litigation. The EIA Notification 2006 requires consideration of cumulative impacts, but implementation has been inconsistent. Courts have increasingly emphasized that environmental clearances cannot be granted in isolation but must consider the combined impact of existing and proposed projects in an area, particularly in ecologically sensitive zones.

In Goa Foundation v. Union of India, the National Green Tribunal held that cumulative impact assessment must be carried out for mining projects, considering all existing and proposed mining activities in the region. The Tribunal directed that clearances must account for carrying capacity of the area and cannot be granted if cumulative impacts exceed environmental thresholds. This principle has been extended to other sectors including industrial clusters, infrastructure corridors, and urban development projects.

8. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

Comparative analysis of EIA regimes in other jurisdictions provides valuable insights into potential improvements in the Indian framework. The United States’ National Environmental Policy Act 1969 pioneered the concept of environmental impact assessment and established a rigorous framework including mandatory consideration of alternatives, cumulative impacts, and public participation. The European Union’s EIA Directive requires member states to ensure thorough environmental assessment of projects likely to have significant environmental effects.

Several jurisdictions have incorporated climate impact assessment as a mandatory component of EIA. The United Kingdom requires consideration of climate change impacts and greenhouse gas emissions in environmental assessments. Similarly, the European Union’s revised EIA Directive explicitly requires assessment of climate change impacts. These international developments suggest that India’s EIA framework would benefit from formal integration of climate considerations and more explicit guidance on cumulative impact assessment methodologies.

9. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite significant evolution of the EIA framework and environmental jurisprudence in India, several challenges persist. The quality of EIA reports remains inconsistent, with many assessments providing inadequate baseline data or relying on generic impact predictions. The capacity of regulatory authorities to effectively evaluate technical aspects of EIA reports is often limited. Public consultation, while mandatory, frequently fails to achieve meaningful community participation, with proceedings dominated by project proponents and inadequate time provided for affected communities to understand complex technical documents.

Enforcement of clearance conditions remains weak, with inadequate monitoring and consequences for non-compliance. The practice of granting post-facto clearances, even if limited, undermines the preventive character of environmental assessment. There is urgent need for strengthening institutional capacity, improving quality control mechanisms for EIA reports, enhancing public participation through better information dissemination in local languages, establishing robust monitoring and enforcement systems, integrating climate change and biodiversity considerations systematically, and developing carrying capacity-based regional environmental assessment frameworks.

Judicial intervention has played a crucial role in upholding environmental standards and ensuring accountability in clearance processes. However, judicial oversight cannot substitute for effective administrative implementation of environmental laws. There is need for administrative reforms to strengthen the EIA system, including professionalization of EIA practice through accreditation systems, transparent and participatory decision-making processes, and adequate resources for regulatory authorities to conduct independent assessments and monitoring.

10. CONCLUSION

Environmental Impact Assessment represents a critical tool for sustainable development, serving as a bridge between developmental aspirations and environmental imperatives. The Indian legal framework for EIA, evolved through statutory provisions and judicial interpretation, embodies fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence including precautionary principle, sustainable development, and public participation. The power to challenge environmental clearances through judicial review provides an essential accountability mechanism, ensuring that developmental decisions are subjected to scrutiny and that affected communities have voice in decision-making processes.

The jurisprudence developed by Indian courts, particularly the National Green Tribunal and Supreme Court, has established robust standards for environmental clearances and grounds for judicial intervention. Landmark decisions have reinforced that environmental protection is a constitutional obligation, that procedural safeguards cannot be diluted for administrative convenience, and that environmental clearances must be based on rigorous scientific assessment and meaningful public consultation. These principles provide a strong foundation for environmental governance, though their effective implementation remains challenging.

Going forward, the effectiveness of the EIA system will depend on continuous improvement of assessment methodologies, strengthening of institutional capacity, enhancement of public participation mechanisms, and integration of emerging environmental challenges including climate change and biodiversity loss. While judicial review remains an important corrective mechanism, the primary responsibility for environmental protection must rest with administrative authorities implementing environmental laws with diligence, transparency, and commitment to constitutional environmental mandates. Only through such comprehensive approach can India achieve the balance between development and environmental sustainability that is essential for present and future generations.