Environmental Law

Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India

2009 SCC OnLine Del 3836

Facts

The case concerned environmental clearances granted for two iron-ore mining projects at Rivona in South Goa.
Public hearings had been conducted, during which local residents raised objections concerning:
water pollution;
forest impact;
agricultural loss;
dust;
transport;
effects on nearby settlements.
A large number of residents participated and numerous objections were recorded.
The Expert Appraisal Committee nevertheless recommended environmental clearance in brief terms.
Its minutes did not explain:
how the objections had been examined;
why the environmental concerns were rejected;
what safeguards answered those concerns.
Allegations were also raised concerning the independence of the EAC’s chairperson because of links with mining companies.
The National Environment Appellate Authority dismissed the challenge without adequately correcting the deficiencies.
The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court.

Whether an Expert Appraisal Committee must give reasons while recommending environmental clearance.
Whether public-hearing objections can be merely recorded without being substantively considered.
Whether a conflict of interest affected the validity of the appraisal process.

Environmental clearance is a public-law decision affecting:
health;
livelihood;
natural resources;
future generations.
The EAC must apply its independent mind to the material placed before it.
Reasons are necessary because they:
demonstrate genuine consideration;
permit judicial review;
promote accountability;
assure affected persons that their objections were heard.
Public consultation under the EIA process must be meaningful rather than ceremonial.
Decision-makers must be free from a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The High Court examined the EAC minutes and found no real engagement with the objections.
The committee had not explained:
whether groundwater concerns were scientifically assessed;
how mining dust would be controlled;
what effect transportation would have;
whether the area’s forest and agricultural character had been properly evaluated.
Merely stating that a project had been “considered” did not show application of mind.
The EAC performed an important delegated public function.
Although composed of technical experts, it was not exempt from:
fairness;
transparency;
reasoned decision-making.
The Court rejected the idea that technical expertise made reasons unnecessary.
Expert reasoning was especially important because an ordinary court could not independently reconstruct the scientific basis of the decision.
Public hearings would become meaningless if citizens were permitted to speak but the appraisal authority could ignore their concerns without explanation.
The Court also considered the allegation of conflict of interest.
Environmental appraisal must command public confidence.
A member closely connected with the regulated industry could create a reasonable apprehension that the process was not independent.
The proper remedy was therefore not for the Court itself to decide whether mining should be approved.
The project had to return to a properly constituted EAC for fresh consideration.

The Delhi High Court set aside the environmental clearances and the appellate order.
It directed fresh appraisal by a reconstituted EAC.
The committee was required to:
conduct an appropriate site examination;
consider all public objections;
assess relevant environmental material;
record clear reasons for its conclusions.
The judgment established that EAC recommendations cannot be unreasoned administrative endorsements.
Environmental decision-making must disclose why public and scientific concerns are accepted or rejected.
Use this case for: the mandatory duty of EACs to give reasons and genuinely consider public-hearing objections.