📰 What are the key changes in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2020?
Will environment regulation be weakened?
•The story so far: The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has published the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020, with the intention of replacing the existing EIA Notification, 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The government wants to incorporate modifications made to the regulations through amendments in the interim period. An EIA makes a scientific estimate of the likely impacts of a project, such as a mine, irrigation dam, industrial unit or waste treatment plant. There is also a provision for public consultation in the rules, including a public hearing at which the local community and interested persons can give opinions and raise objections, based on the draft EIA report prepared by experts for the project.
How does the draft EIA Notification differ from the one now in force?
•Among the major departures from existing regulations is the removal of several activities from the purview of public consultation. A list of projects has been included under Category B2, expressly exempted from the requirement of an EIA (Clause 13, sub cl. 11).
•The projects under this category include offshore and onshore oil, gas and shale exploration, hydroelectric projects up to 25 MW, irrigation projects between 2,000 and 10,000 hectares of command area, small and medium mineral beneficiation units, small foundries involving furnace units, some categories of re-rolling mills, small and medium cement plants, small clinker grinding units, acids other than phosphoric or ammonia, sulphuric acid, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in dye and dye intermediates, bulk drugs, synthetic rubbers, medium-sized paint units, all inland waterway projects, expansion or widening of highways between 25 km and 100 km with defined parameters, aerial ropeways in ecologically sensitive areas, and specified building construction and area development projects.
•The projects in this list are, under existing norms, identified on the basis of screening by Expert Appraisal Committees, rather than being exempted through listing in the Schedule. Also, coal and non-coal mineral prospecting and solar photovoltaic projects do not need prior environmental clearance or permission in the new scheme.
What are the apprehensions?
•There is apprehension that the exemption from EIA and public consultation for listed B2 category activity and expansion and modernisation projects will seriously affect the environment, since these will be carried out without oversight. Combined with a new provision for post-facto environmental clearance (of projects executed without prior clearance), this would further weaken protections. Moreover, the notice period for public hearing has been cut from 30 days to 20 days. This will make it difficult to study the draft EIA report, more so when it is not widely available or provided in the regional language.
•Similarly, for project modernisation and expansion, the norms in Notification 2020 are liberal, with only those involving more than 25% increase requiring EIA, and over 50% attracting public consultation.
•Under the proposed changes, project proponents need to submit only one annual report on compliance with conditions, compared to the existing two. The move is seen as retrograde, because the CAG found in 2016 that the deficiency in semi-annual compliance reporting was between 43% and 78%, while failure to comply with conditions ranged from 5% to 57%. Non-compliance was encountered particularly in river valley and hydroelectric power projects and thermal power projects. After the gas leak at LG Polymers in Visakhapatnam on May 7, the Environment Ministry told the National Green Tribunal that the unit lacked environment clearance, exposing the low effectiveness of rules.
How would the new rules enable post-facto approval of violations?
•The MoEF&CC cites its own order of March 14, 2017 enabling appraisal of projects involving violations — where construction had begun or expansion or modernisation was carried out without clearance — and an order of the Jharkhand High Court asking for consideration of a case on merits, independent of penal action for violation, to introduce a beneficial scheme for violators.
•The EIA Notification 2020 excludes reporting by the public of violations and non-compliance. Instead, the government will take cognisance of reports only from the violator-promoter, government authority, Appraisal Committee or Regulatory Authority. Such projects can then be approved with conditions, including remediation of ecological damage, which, again, will be assessed and reported by the violator (and not an unconnected agency), although Central Pollution Control Board guidelines must be used.
How does the draft notification compare with global norms?
•EIA rules must meet the requirements of the precautionary principle of avoiding harm, and intergenerational equity. The European Union, as an evolving example, has modified its processes in accordance with the Aarhus Convention, 1998, which stipulates that environmental rights and human rights are linked, the present generation owes an obligation to future generations, sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders, government accountability and environmental protection are connected, and interactions between the public and public authorities must take place in a democratic context. The EU Directive on EIA includes climate change and biodiversity concerns.
•The rules in India, including EIA 2006, it can be argued, privileged the interests of the project proponent by whittling down public consultations, accepting flawed and faulty EIA reports resulting from external influences, and ignoring the non-renewable nature of resources. Notification 2020 deepens the impact of that paradigm.
What are the major challenges?
•The story so far: The Union Cabinet approved a new National Education Policy on July 29, after a 34-year gap. The National Education Policy, 2020 is meant to provide an overarching vision and comprehensive framework for both school and higher education across the country. The new NEP, approved by the Cabinet, has not been presented in Parliament. It is the first to be formulated by a Bharatiya Janata Party government and the first in the 21st century. It is only a policy, not a law; implementation of its proposals depends on further regulations by both States and the Centre as education is a concurrent subject.
What are some of the key proposals?
•The NEP proposes to change the school curricular structure from the current 10+2 (Class 1-10 of general education followed by two years of higher secondary school with specialised subjects) with a 5+3+3+4 structure, bringing children from ages 3 to 5 years within the formal education system for the first time, and ensuring curricular continuity in the last four years. A mission for foundational literacy and numeracy, free breakfasts being added to free lunches in government schools, vocational education along with internships from Class 6, and proposed redesign of the board examinations are some other major initiatives for school education.
•For higher education, a new umbrella regulator has been proposed with separate verticals for regulation, standard setting, accreditation and funding. It will absorb arts and science, technical and teacher education into its fold, replacing several existing regulatory bodies, and also ensure a level playing field for public and private players. Top foreign universities will be allowed to set up campuses in India. For students, the biggest change may be the introduction of four-year undergraduate degrees, with options for entry and exit at various stages, a credit transfer system, and the abolition of the M Phil programme.
What is the timeline for implementation?
•The policy is meant to transform the education system by 2040. Some proposals will be implemented immediately, starting with the change in the name of the Ministry of Human Resource Development into the Ministry of Education. “There are over 100 action points from the Policy. Implementation will be done in phases, based on time, region and types of institutions with Institutes of Eminence (IoEs) and Central Universities taking the lead,” said Higher Education Secretary Amit Khare. For instance, four-year undergraduate degrees with multiple entry-exit options will be introduced in the 20 IoEs from the 2020-21 academic year, while others continue with the existing three-year degree courses. Existing M.Phil students can continue until they complete their degree, although new admissions for the programme will not be accepted.
•The National Testing Agency will introduce a pilot version of the common entrance test by December 2020, which will be used for admission to all IoEs and central universities in 2021. Some Indian Institutes of Technology are working on developing the technical structure of the Academic Credit Bank, which will also be established by December, and become applicable to all new students joining central universities next year.
•The National Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Mission which is to be implemented by 2025 will be launched by the end of this year, said Mr. Khare. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) will introduce the curricular framework for the new school structure, including early childhood care, by the next academic year.
Where do the difficulties lie?
•Some of the proposals require legal changes. The draft Higher Education Commission of India Bill has been languishing in the Ministry for over a year, but is likely to be published for feedback by September. The proposal for a Board of Governors for universities may also require amendments of the Central and State Universities Acts. A Cabinet note has already been moved to set up the National Research Foundation as a trust under the government, but in order to make it a fully autonomous body, an Act may be required.
•Others require funding. Free breakfasts can only be considered in the next academic year if a budget allocation is made to cover it. The process of converting affiliated colleges into degree granting autonomous institutions and then further into fully fledged universities is estimated to take at least 15 years, as the Centre will have to provide financial assistance for this purpose.
•The Ministry feels that an increase in government funding of education to 6% of GDP will be sufficient to cover the financial implications of the NEP. However, such an increase in funding has been proposed but not achieved for the last half-century, point out experts. The proposal to make the mother tongue the medium of instruction till Class 5, which has stirred up the fiercest debates, is dependent on State governments, according to the Education Minister, who would not even confirm that the policy will be implemented by centrally-run schools.
📰 What is contempt of court?
What is the rationale for this provision? Do judicial institutions need protection?
•The story so far: Contempt of court, as a concept that seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority, is back in the news in India. This follows the initiation of contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court of India, on its own motion, against advocate-activist Prashant Bhushan.
How did the concept of contempt come into being?
•The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old. In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by himself, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name. Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself. Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.
What is the statutory basis for contempt of court?
•There were pre-Independence laws of contempt in India. Besides the early High Courts, the courts of some princely states also had such laws. When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. Separately, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself. Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.
What are the kinds of contempt of court?
•The law codifying contempt classifies it as civil and criminal. Civil contempt is fairly simple. It is committed when someone wilfully disobeys a court order, or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to court. Criminal contempt is more complex. It consists of three forms: (a) words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalise” or “tend to scandalise” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court (b) prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding and (c) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.
•Making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attributing motives to judgments and judicial functioning and any scurrilous attack on the conduct of judges are normally considered matters that scandalise the judiciary. The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
•The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months and/or a fine of up to ₹. 2,000.
What is not contempt of court?
•Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court. Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after a case is heard and disposed of.
Is truth a defence against a contempt charge?
•For many years, truth was seldom considered a defence against a charge of contempt. There was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual members in the name of protecting the image of the institution. The Act was amended in 2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence, if it was in public interest and was invoked in a bona fide manner.
