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, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, makes prior environmental clearance mandatory for listed projects. The draft of March 2020 (S.O. 1199(E)) proposed to replace it, and the differences touch precaution and public voice.
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 Alembic's test stands: clearance after the fact contradicts the precautionary principle, so a new notification must keep prior scrutiny and a full public hearing.
Add value (verified)
- Supreme Court, Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (1 April 2020), as reported by LiveLaw (legal news report): ex post facto environmental clearance is against the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and contrary to the precautionary principle.LiveLaw report on Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati, Supreme Court, 1 April 2020 ↗“The Supreme Court has reiterated that the concept of 'ex post facto' Environmental Clearance (EC) is against the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence.”
- Delhi High Court, Vikrant Tongad v. Union of India (30 June 2020), as summarised by ELAW: the deadline for public comments on the draft EIA notification was set at 11 August 2020, and the Court declined to extend it further.ELAW case summary: Vikrant Tongad v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 3747/2020, Delhi High Court, 30 June 2020 ↗“The Court set the deadline for comments as August 11, 2020 and declined to extend the period further. The High Court also addressed the fact that the draft notification was only published in English”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2020, GS Paper III — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 224words · Minimalist IAS
The EIA Notification, 2006, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, makes prior environmental clearance mandatory for listed projects. The draft of March 2020 (S.O. 1199(E)) proposed to replace it, and the differences touch precaution and public voice.
How draft 2020 differs from EIA 2006
| Aspect | EIA 2006 | Draft EIA 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Project started without clearance | A violation | Regularised on penalty (clause 22) |
| Notice for public hearing | 30 days | 20 days |
| Validity: mining | 30 years | 50 years |
- Who reports violations: cognizance rests on the promoter's own report, a government authority or an appraisal finding, not on citizens.
- Who is consulted: B2 projects and those declared strategic are exempt from public consultation.
- How often compliance is checked: one report a year instead of two.
Why the differences matter
- Post-facto clearance: in Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (April 2020; LiveLaw report, non-official) the Supreme Court held ex post facto clearance contrary to the precautionary principle.
- Public participation: the Delhi High Court (Vikrant Tongad, 30 June 2020; ELAW summary, non-official) fixed 11 August 2020 as the deadline for objections.
Way forward
- Keep the safeguards: prior clearance without regularisation, the 30-day notice, consultation for B2 projects and citizen complaints.
Faster clearance is a fair aim, but Alembic's test stands: clearance after the fact contradicts the precautionary principle, so a new notification must keep prior scrutiny and a full public hearing.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
