SC must stop retrospective environmental approvals, Sariska boundary revision: Jairam Ramesh

The statement by Jairam Ramesh, a prominent political figure and former Union Minister for Environment and Forests, brings to the fore critical issues concerning India's environmental governance, the rule of law, and the efficacy of its regulatory institutions. His call for the Supreme Court to intervene against retrospective environmental approvals and the proposed boundary revision of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, coupled with his assertion about the dilution of the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) powers, underscores a growing concern among environmental advocates and policymakers. **Background Context: The Evolution of Environmental Governance in India** India's journey in environmental protection gained significant momentum after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in 1984, which highlighted glaring gaps in industrial safety and environmental regulation. This tragedy spurred the enactment of the comprehensive Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA), an umbrella legislation that granted the central government wide-ranging powers to protect and improve the environment. Prior to this, specific laws like the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, were already in place. A crucial procedural aspect under the EPA is the requirement for Environmental Clearances (ECs) for various developmental projects, mandated by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. These clearances are supposed to be granted *prior* to the commencement of any project, after a thorough assessment of its potential environmental impact. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established in 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as a specialized judicial body. Its creation was a landmark step, aimed at providing effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. The NGT was empowered to hear cases related to various environmental laws, including the EPA, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, among others. **What Happened: A Challenge to Regulatory Integrity** Jairam Ramesh's statement points to two major concerns: first, the practice of granting retrospective environmental approvals, and second, the specific case of the Sariska Tiger Reserve boundary revision. Retrospective environmental approvals refer to the regularization of projects that have commenced or even completed construction without obtaining the mandatory prior environmental clearance. This practice fundamentally undermines the 'precautionary principle' – a cornerstone of environmental law – which dictates that preventive measures should be taken to avert environmental harm, rather than reacting after damage has occurred. Such approvals essentially allow developers to bypass due process, conduct operations illegally, and then seek post-facto legitimization, often through fines or compensatory measures that may not fully offset the environmental damage. The proposed boundary revision of the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan is another contentious issue. Sariska, established as a wildlife sanctuary in 1955 and declared a tiger reserve in 1978 under Project Tiger, is a critical habitat for biodiversity. Any alteration to its boundaries, especially if it leads to degazetting parts of the reserve for developmental activities, poses a direct threat to wildlife conservation efforts. Protected areas like tiger reserves are declared under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and any changes require careful consideration and adherence to legal provisions to ensure ecological integrity. Ramesh's concern highlights the potential for such revisions to weaken conservation frameworks for economic or industrial interests. His assertion regarding the dilution of NGT's powers over the last decade is equally significant. This dilution is perceived to have occurred through various means, including changes in the appointment process of judicial and expert members, which shifted power from the Supreme Court Chief Justice to the executive, as well as narrowing the scope of NGT's jurisdiction or appeals. Such changes are seen to undermine its autonomy and effectiveness as a dedicated environmental watchdog. **Key Stakeholders and Significance for India** **Jairam Ramesh**, as a senior political leader, acts as a voice for environmental concerns, urging higher judicial intervention. The **Supreme Court of India** is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy environment (derived from Article 21, the Right to Life). Its intervention is sought to uphold the rule of law and protect environmental principles. The **National Green Tribunal (NGT)**, despite its perceived dilution, remains a critical specialized body for environmental justice. The **Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)** is the executive authority responsible for granting environmental clearances and overseeing conservation policies. **Project proponents and industries** are the beneficiaries of these approvals, often prioritizing economic development. Lastly, **local communities, environmental activists, and wildlife conservationists** are crucial stakeholders who bear the brunt of environmental degradation and advocate for protection. This issue matters profoundly for India. It directly impacts **environmental governance**, questioning the integrity and effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms. It raises concerns about the **rule of law** and whether environmental regulations are being enforced uniformly or are susceptible to political and industrial pressures. The debate is central to India's commitment to **sustainable development**, balancing economic growth with ecological preservation. Weakening environmental safeguards can have severe **social impacts**, affecting public health, livelihoods, and the well-being of communities dependent on natural resources. On the **economic front**, while retrospective approvals might offer short-term relief to industries, they can lead to long-term environmental costs and erode investor confidence in regulatory predictability. The protection of tiger reserves like Sariska is vital for **biodiversity conservation**, an area where India has made significant international commitments. **Constitutional Provisions and Future Implications** Several constitutional provisions underpin environmental protection in India. **Article 21** (Right to Life) has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. **Article 48A** (Directive Principles of State Policy) mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. **Article 51A(g)** (Fundamental Duties) enjoins every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. These articles form the bedrock of India's environmental jurisprudence. Future implications hinge on the Supreme Court's response. A strong stance against retrospective approvals could set a crucial precedent, reinforcing the principle of prior environmental clearance and deterring illegal operations. It could also prompt a re-evaluation of the NGT's powers and autonomy, potentially strengthening its role. Conversely, a failure to intervene decisively could further embolden non-compliance and weaken environmental regulations, leading to greater ecological degradation and undermining India's international commitments on climate change and biodiversity. This debate is a litmus test for India's resolve to uphold environmental rule of law in the face of developmental pressures.