National Green Tribunal Upholds Environmental Clearance for Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining Project: EAS Sarma v. Union of India
1. Introduction
The case of EAS Sarma v. Union of India presented before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai, revolves around an appeal challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for its Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining Project (OCP) in Telangana. The appellant, EAS Sarma, objected to the EC on grounds of alleged non-compliance with Terms of Reference (ToR), inadequate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), improper public hearings, and potential adverse impacts on local communities and the environment.
2. Summary of the Judgment
After thorough deliberations, the NGT dismissed the appeal filed by EAS Sarma, thereby upholding the Environmental Clearance granted to SCCL for the Kistaram OCP. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to substantiate its claims against procedural lapses and non-compliance with environmental norms. However, the Tribunal imposed several directions aimed at enhancing environmental safeguards and ensuring compliance with existing conditions.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The appellant referenced multiple judicial pronouncements to substantiate its claims, including:
- T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (W.P. Civil No.202 of 1995)
- Themrei Tuithung & Ors. Vs. Union of India (Review Application No.46 of 2016)
- M.A. No.22 of 2016 (EZ) in Appeal No.04 of 2014 (EZ)
- Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Vs. MoEF&CC (2013) 6 SCC 476
- Paryawaran Sanrakshan Sangarsh Samiti Lippa Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Appeal No.28 of 2013)
- Ramesh Agarwal Vs. SEIAA, Chhattisgarh (Appeal No.20 of 2011 of NGT)
- Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India (2009 X AD Delhi 365)
- Samarth Trust Vs. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No.9317 of 2009]
- Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No.12251 of 2018
These precedents primarily dealt with the procedural aspects of environmental clearances, the necessity of rigorous EIAs, and the protection of affected communities' rights under environmental laws. The NGT, however, found that the specific circumstances of the present case did not warrant a departure from established procedures based on these precedents.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
Chief Justice K. Ramakrishnan and Expert Member Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati emphasized the following points:
- Compliance with Procedures: The Tribunal observed that SCCL adhered to the procedural requirements under the EIA Notification, 2006. Multiple sessions of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) scrutinized the project, requesting clarifications and additional information, which were subsequently addressed by SCCL.
- Public Hearing: Contrary to the appellant's claims of a 'sham' hearing, the NGT acknowledged that the public hearing was conducted under the supervision of the Joint Collector, with extensive publicity and participation from the local populace.
- Environmental Impact Assessment: The EIA report, prepared in accordance with the ToR, was deemed comprehensive. The Tribunal noted that potential impacts were identified and mitigated through established measures, including pollution control mechanisms and wildlife mitigation plans.
- Forest Rights and Community Consent: The Tribunal found that the necessary Gram Sabha resolutions were obtained as per the Forest Rights Act, 2006, ensuring that community rights were respected.
- Conflict of Interest Allegations: The appellant's concerns about potential conflicts of interest within the conducting agency were dismissed, citing the accreditation and standardization of the Environmental Impact Assessment processes.
- Directive Conditions: The Tribunal approved the EC but imposed additional directives to further safeguard environmental and public health interests, reflecting the principles of 'Precautionary Principle' and 'Sustainable Development'.
3.3 Impact
The judgment has significant implications for future environmental clearances, particularly in the mining sector. It underscores the importance of procedural compliance while also highlighting that substantive environmental concerns, if convincingly demonstrated, could influence Tribunal decisions. Additionally, the imposed directions set a precedent for enhanced environmental monitoring and mitigation measures for large-scale industrial projects.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
4.1 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
This Act restricts the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes without the prior approval of the central government. In this case, SCCL obtained the necessary forest clearance under this Act before proceeding with their mining project.
4.2 Environmental Clearance (EC)
EC is mandatory for projects that may have significant environmental impacts. It involves a thorough assessment of the project's potential effects on the environment, including physical, biological, and social aspects.
4.3 Terms of Reference (ToR)
ToR outlines the scope and specific requirements for conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It ensures that the EIA comprehensively addresses all potential environmental concerns related to the project.
4.4 Precautionary Principle
This principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on those advocating for the action. The Tribunal applied this principle by imposing additional safeguards despite upholding the EC.
5. Conclusion
The decision in EAS Sarma v. Union of India reinforces the judiciary's role in meticulously reviewing environmental clearances, ensuring that procedural norms are adhered to and that environmental and community interests are adequately safeguarded. While the NGT upheld the Environmental Clearance granted to SCCL for the Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining Project, it simultaneously emphasized the need for robust monitoring and compliance with environmental safeguards. This judgment serves as a critical reference for future cases, balancing industrial development with ecological and societal well-being.
Comments