How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?
Approach · directive: “how”
What it asks · Compare the 2020 draft with the 2006 Notification on the points that changed: prior clearance and violations, public consultation, reporting and validity.
Open with · The EIA Notification, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, makes prior environmental clearance mandatory for listed projects; the 2020 draft proposed to rewrite that process.
Cover
- Violations: 2006 requires clearance before work begins; draft clause 22 lets projects started without it be regularised on penalty, which critics call post-facto legalisation.
- Cognizance of violations rests on the promoter's own report, a government authority's report or an appraisal finding; citizens must route complaints through officials.
- Public consultation: notice for a public hearing is cut from 30 to 20 days, and B2 and strategic projects are exempt from consultation.
- Compliance: promoters file one compliance report a year instead of two, which reduces monitoring.
- Validity: clearance is valid for up to 50 years for mining (30 before) and 15 for river-valley projects (10 before).
- Rationale and critique: the government cites ease, digital filing and transparency; critics say it dilutes public participation and the precautionary principle.
Close with · Faster, digital clearance is a fair aim, but it should not weaken prior scrutiny, public participation or the precautionary principle.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2020, GS Paper III — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 218 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
The EIA Notification, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, makes prior environmental clearance mandatory for listed projects. The draft notification of March 2020 (S.O. 1199(E)) proposed to replace it and differs on five counts.
Prior clearance and violations
- 2006: clearance must come before construction; a project that starts without it is a violation. Draft 2020: clause 22 lets such projects be regularised on payment of a penalty, which critics call post-facto clearance that rewards the violator.
- Cognizance of a violation would rest on the promoter's own report, a government authority or an appraisal finding, so citizens must route complaints through officials.
Public consultation
- The notice period for a public hearing falls from 30 days to 20, and B2 projects and those declared strategic are exempt from consultation altogether.
Compliance and validity
- Promoters would file one compliance report a year instead of two, thinning monitoring.
- Clearance would stay valid longer: up to 50 years for mining (30 in 2006) and 15 years for river-valley projects (10 earlier).
Rationale and critique
- The government cites ease of doing business, online filing and transparency; critics say the draft dilutes public participation and the precautionary principle.
Faster, digital clearance is a fair aim, but it should not weaken the prior scrutiny, public voice and precaution that give impact assessment its meaning.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.