Environmental Law

Praffula Samantra & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. - POSCO Case

Appeal No. 8 of 2011

Facts

POSCO proposed an integrated steel plant, captive power plant and port in Odisha.
Separate environmental clearances were granted in 2007 for different components of the project.
The proposal was presented in phases, beginning with approximately 4 million tonnes per annum, although the ultimate capacity was planned at approximately 12 million tonnes.
Serious concerns arose regarding:
cumulative pollution;
water demand;
coastal impact;
port development;
forest diversion;
effect on local communities.
The Ministry appointed review committees.
A majority report expressed substantial concerns, while a minority report by Meena Gupta favoured continuation with additional safeguards.
On 31 January 2011, the Ministry allowed the clearances to continue subject to further conditions.
Environmental activists challenged that decision before the National Green Tribunal.

Whether the Ministry had conducted an adequate and independent environmental review.
Whether the cumulative impact of the complete 12 MTPA project had been assessed.
Whether reliance upon assurances and a minority report satisfied environmental appraisal requirements.
What relief the Tribunal could grant despite limitation affecting the original 2007 clearances.

Environmental appraisal must be:
reasoned;
scientifically informed;
independent;
based on the project’s real cumulative impact.
A project cannot be artificially divided into components or phases to avoid full assessment.
Expert Appraisal Committees must apply their own mind and cannot merely accept the project proponent’s assurances.
Sustainable development and the precautionary principle require investigation before irreversible construction begins.
An appellate tribunal may suspend a later review order where that order rests upon inadequate appraisal.

The Tribunal distinguished between:
direct challenges to the original 2007 clearances, which faced limitation difficulties; and
the Ministry’s fresh order dated 31 January 2011, which was properly before it.
It examined whether the later Ministry review had genuinely cured the earlier deficiencies.
The Tribunal found that the project’s environmental footprint could not be judged only by reference to the first 4 MTPA phase.
Land, infrastructure, water supply, port capacity and pollution implications were connected with the ultimate 12 MTPA project.
A fragmented appraisal risked understating:
emissions;
water consumption;
waste;
displacement;
coastal impact;
cumulative industrial pressure.
The Ministry had substantially relied upon the minority committee report without adequately explaining why the majority’s concerns were rejected.
The Tribunal also criticised reliance on future promises that detailed studies would be completed after approval.
Environmental clearance is meant to evaluate risk before the project creates irreversible commitments.
It cannot be reduced to conditional acceptance followed by later investigation.
The Tribunal required fresh examination by properly constituted specialist bodies with expertise relevant to:
steel;
power;
ports;
coastal ecology;
cumulative environmental impact.

The NGT suspended the Ministry’s order dated 31 January 2011.
It directed a fresh environmental review by properly constituted expert bodies.
The review had to assess:
the integrated and ultimate project capacity;
cumulative impacts;
carrying capacity;
water requirements;
pollution;
port and coastal effects;
community concerns.
The Ministry was required to take a fresh final decision after the expert appraisal.
The Tribunal did not permanently prohibit the POSCO project.
It held that such a large integrated project could not proceed on an incomplete, fragmented or unreasoned environmental assessment.
The case is an important NGT authority on substantive EIA review and cumulative-impact appraisal.
Use this case for: suspension of environmental approval where a mega-project’s cumulative and ultimate impact was not properly assessed.