Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA): Law, Policy & Practice in India

Introduction

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a critical environmental governance tool used to evaluate the likely environmental consequences of proposed development projects before they are granted approval or implemented. It is a structured process that involves identifying, predicting, and assessing potential environmental effects ranging from air and water pollution to biodiversity loss and socio-economic impacts thereby enabling informed decision-making and sustainable planning.^[1]

EIA plays a vital role in promoting sustainable development by ensuring that economic growth does not come at the cost of ecological stability. It helps strike a balance between developmental needs and environmental protection by mandating that project developers consider environmental concerns from the earliest stages of project design. Through mechanisms such as public consultation, EIA also encourages transparency, accountability, and the inclusion of local communities in environmental decision-making.^[2]

In India, the origins of EIA date back to 1978, when the Department of Science and Technology began conducting environmental evaluations for river valley projects.^[3] However, it was formally institutionalized in 1994 under the powers granted by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which serves as the umbrella legislation for environmental protection in India.^[4] Since then, EIA regulations have evolved through various notifications, with the EIA Notification of 2006 being the most comprehensive to date.^[5]

In recent years, the Draft EIA Notification of 2020 sparked widespread public debate and criticism. It proposed significant changes such as post-facto environmental clearances and diluted public participation, raising concerns that it would weaken environmental safeguards and undermine the core purpose of the EIA process.

Legal and Policy Framework of EIA in India

The legal foundation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in India is rooted in a series of policies, legislative actions, and administrative mechanisms aimed at integrating environmental considerations into development planning. Over time, this framework has evolved to reflect both international best practices and domestic socio-environmental needs.

A. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 serves as the umbrella legislation for environmental governance in India. Enacted in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy, it empowers the central government to take all necessary measures to protect and improve environmental quality.^[6] Under Section 3(1) of the Act, the government is authorised to issue rules and notifications regulating industrial and developmental activities that may harm the environment.

It is under this Act that the first statutory Environmental Impact Assessment Notification was issued in 1994. The Act provides the legal authority for making EIA mandatory for certain projects and for laying down procedures to obtain prior environmental clearance.

B. EIA Notification, 1994 (revised in 2006)

The EIA Notification of 1994, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (now MoEFCC), marked a turning point by making prior environmental clearance mandatory for 29 categories of development projects, including thermal power plants, mining, infrastructure, and industrial estates.^[7]

Over time, the 1994 notification was found to be inadequate in terms of public participation, decentralization, and environmental monitoring. It was replaced by the comprehensive EIA Notification of 2006, which significantly restructured the process.

Key provisions of the 2006 notification include:

• Categorization of projects into:
  
  • Category A: Projects requiring clearance from the Central Government (MoEFCC).
  • Category B: Projects to be cleared by State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).^[8]
• Screening and Scoping: For Category B projects, a screening process determines whether full EIA is required.
• Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) and State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs) were established to review and appraise EIA reports and make recommendations on clearances.^[9]
• Public Consultation became a formal requirement through public hearings and written responses from stakeholders.

This notification also laid down time-bound procedures, mitigation strategies, and post-clearance monitoring mechanisms.

C. Draft EIA Notification, 2020

In March 2020, the MoEFCC released the Draft EIA Notification, 2020, with the stated aim of updating and simplifying the 2006 process.⁵ However, the draft attracted widespread criticism for the following proposed changes:

• Post-facto environmental clearance: Projects operating without prior approval could still be legalised after the fact.
• Reduced public consultation: Fewer projects required public hearings; deadlines for stakeholder comments were shortened.
• Increased exemptions: Certain projects such as inland waterways, construction, and mining below specified thresholds were exempted from full EIA.^[10]

These changes were viewed by environmentalists, legal scholars, and civil society organisations as a regressive dilution of environmental protection norms. Public interest litigations were filed, and the Delhi High Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT) took note of concerns regarding public participation and procedural fairness.^[11]

Despite government claims that the draft promotes “ease of doing business,” critics argue that it undermines India’s environmental safeguards and weakens mechanisms for public accountability and transparency.

Evolution and Importance of EIA

The concept of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) emerged globally in the 1970s as environmental degradation became an increasing concern across industrialised nations. The first formal legal framework for EIA was introduced in the United States through the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969, which made it mandatory for federal agencies to evaluate the environmental consequences of their proposed actions.^[12] This law became a global reference point for many countries, including India.

International organisations such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank played a significant role in promoting EIA practices in developing countries by incorporating environmental safeguards into loan conditions and development assistance.^[13]

In the Indian context, although formal EIA procedures were adopted in 1994, the groundwork for integrating environmental assessment into project planning began earlier. The 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment marked a turning point, after which India began strengthening its environmental laws. In 1976–77, the Planning Commission initiated environmental evaluations for river valley projects, and these gradually extended to other sectors.^[14]

Over time, EIA has evolved from a narrow technical checklist to a comprehensive tool for sustainable development. Its importance lies in the following functions:

• Preventing irreversible environmental damage by identifying harmful consequences at the planning stage.
• Integrating environmental and public concerns into project decision-making.
• Promoting transparency and accountability in governance by involving stakeholders through public consultations.
• Ensuring long-term ecological sustainability and informed choices among development alternatives.^[15]

Thus, EIA is not just a regulatory requirement it is a strategic planning instrument that supports responsible development while safeguarding environmental resources for future generations.

Stages of the EIA Process in India

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in India is a multi-stage framework designed to evaluate and manage the potential environmental impacts of development projects before they are implemented. These stages ensure that projects are not only economically viable but also environmentally sustainable and socially responsible. The EIA Notification of 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, formally outlines the following procedural steps:

1. Screening

The screening stage determines whether a project requires a full EIA or can be exempted. Under the 2006 Notification, projects are classified into Category A and Category B based on their size, type, and potential environmental impact. While Category A projects require mandatory EIA, Category B projects may undergo screening by State-level authorities to decide if detailed assessment is necessary.

2. Scoping

In this stage, the relevant Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) defines the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EIA report. This includes identifying key environmental parameters to be studied such as air quality, biodiversity, water usage, noise pollution, and socio-economic effects. Scoping ensures that the EIA focuses on relevant concerns and avoids unnecessary data collection.

3. Baseline Study

This step involves collecting detailed data on the existing environmental conditions of the project site and its surrounding areas. Baseline studies provide the reference point against which future changes caused by the project can be measured. Parameters include meteorology, topography, flora and fauna, hydrology, and land use.

4. Impact Assessment

In this critical stage, the project’s potential adverse environmental impacts are predicted and analysed. These may include air and water pollution, noise levels, ecological disturbances, displacement of communities, and effects on human health. The goal is to assess the magnitude, extent, and duration of impacts under normal and worst-case scenarios.

5. Public Consultation

This mandatory stage facilitates participation from local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders. It consists of two components: a public hearing conducted by the District Magistrate, and the written responses from stakeholders.⁵ The public is given access to the EIA Summary in the local language to ensure inclusive feedback. This stage enhances transparency and accountability in decision-making.

6. Appraisal and Clearance

Following public consultation, the EAC or SEAC evaluates the EIA report and public feedback. Based on its recommendations, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) grants or rejects the environmental clearance.

7. Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

The EMP outlines specific mitigation measures, resource management strategies, and safety protocols to minimize the project’s environmental impact. It also includes budgeting, staffing, and institutional responsibilities.

8. Monitoring and Compliance

Post-clearance, the project proponent is required to submit periodic compliance reports to the regulatory authorities. The Central and State Pollution Control Boards (CPCB/SPCB) and MoEFCC ensure that the mitigation measures and clearance conditions are properly implemented through inspections and audits.^[16]

Environmental Management Systems and Environmental Auditing

To strengthen the post-clearance environmental performance of projects, organisations adopt tools such as Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and Environmental Auditing. These mechanisms support continuous monitoring, legal compliance, and performance improvement in managing environmental responsibilities.

An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a structured and systematic approach used by organisations to minimise their environmental footprint while achieving regulatory and operational goals. The internationally recognised ISO 14001 standard is the most widely adopted EMS framework. It provides a roadmap for organisations to develop an environmental policy, identify and evaluate environmental aspects, implement environmental programs, and ensure compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.^[17]

Implementing EMS offers several advantages:

• Regulatory compliance by aligning operational activities with environmental laws and standards.
• Risk mitigation by identifying and addressing potential environmental hazards.
• Operational efficiency and cost savings, especially through reduced waste and resource consumption.
• Improved corporate image and public trust due to enhanced environmental performance and transparency.^[18]

Closely related to EMS is the practice of Environmental Auditing, which serves as a critical tool for verifying whether environmental management plans and regulatory conditions are being properly implemented. Environmental audits involve an independent, systematic examination of whether an organisation’s environmental practices conform to established standards and obligations.^[19]

The main objectives of environmental auditing include:

• Assessing actual compliance with environmental laws, policies, and conditions laid down in EIA clearances,
• Identifying gaps, risks, and inefficiencies in environmental management,
• Recommending corrective and preventive actions for continual improvement.

There are several types of environmental audits depending on the focus area:

• Compliance Audits, which evaluate adherence to legal norms;
• EMS Audits, which assess the performance of implemented environmental systems;
• Functional Audits, including specific audits on energy use, waste generation, and water management;
• Risk and Lifecycle Audits, which analyse potential hazards and impacts throughout the project lifecycle.^[20]

Environmental auditing thus serves as an important feedback loop within the EIA process. It ensures that the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and mitigation measures recommended in the EIA are not merely documented but actively practiced, thereby reinforcing accountability and sustainability.

Role of Public Participation

Public participation is a core element of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in India, particularly emphasized under the EIA Notification of 2006. It ensures that affected communities, civil society organisations, and stakeholders have a voice in decisions that may impact their environment, health, and livelihoods.

According to the 2006 Notification, public consultation is a mandatory step for most Category A and B1 projects. It consists of two main components:

• Prior announcement of public hearings, which must be held at the project site or nearby location by the District Administration, giving stakeholders sufficient notice.
• Distribution of executive summaries of the EIA report in local languages, enabling informed feedback from the public.
• Recording and addressing of objections, comments, and suggestions made during the hearing. These inputs must be incorporated and responded to in the final appraisal report before environmental clearance is granted.^[21]

This consultative process is designed to promote transparency, community empowerment, and environmental democracy. It ensures that local populations often the most directly impacted are not excluded from the environmental decision-making process.^[22]

However, in practice, the public hearing process in India has often drawn criticism. Many hearings are poorly publicised, conducted in inaccessible formats or languages, and held at inconvenient times. There are also instances where the EIA report is not made available with sufficient lead time for stakeholders to study it properly. ^[23]Critics argue that such procedural lapses reduce the hearings to mere formalities, undermining the very objective of participatory environmental governance.

Strengthening public consultation mechanisms and ensuring genuine stakeholder engagement is therefore essential for making the EIA process more inclusive, accountable, and effective.

Criticisms and Challenges in Implementation

While India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) mechanism is well established through statutory instruments such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification of 2006, its implementation continues to suffer from significant gaps and practical inefficiencies, as identified in academic literature, civil society reports, and legal observations.

One of the most pressing concerns is the poor quality of EIA reports, which are often generic, copied from other projects, or prepared with little site-specific detail. These reports fail to assess the actual ecological sensitivities or socio-economic impacts of the proposed projects. Several EIA documents even lack proper baseline data, carry contradictory information, and demonstrate a lack of interdisciplinary input issues frequently highlighted by environmental researchers and watchdogs.

Another critical flaw lies in the public consultation process, which, although legally mandated, is frequently reduced to a mere formality. Hearings are often poorly publicised, conducted without full access to EIA reports in regional languages, or scheduled at inconvenient times and locations. As a result, meaningful participation by local communities particularly tribal, rural, and low-literacy populations is severely undermined.

The introduction and growing use of post-facto environmental clearances legalising projects that have already begun without environmental approval has been widely criticised for eroding accountability and incentivising non-compliance. This contradicts the very objective of EIA, which is meant to prevent environmental harm before it occurs.

In addition, SEIAAs and SEACs at the state level are often understaffed, technically underqualified, and lack independent resources to evaluate large-scale industrial or infrastructure proposals. Many of these bodies function with limited data analysis capacity and rely heavily on project proponents’ submissions without independent verification.

Lastly, the absence of a strong post-clearance monitoring system has led to widespread non-compliance with mitigation measures mentioned in the Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). Monitoring is irregular and often limited to paperwork, with rare field audits or third-party assessments.

Together, these issues dilute the credibility of the EIA process and skew decision-making in favour of rapid project approvals at the cost of ecological sustainability, public health, and long-term developmental equity.

Recommendations and the Way Forward

Despite being a crucial tool for environmental governance, the effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in India remains constrained by systemic gaps in quality, enforcement, and inclusivity. Therefore, several reforms are essential to make the EIA framework more accountable, participatory, and environmentally sound.

First, there is an urgent need to ensure transparency and open digital access to all EIA-related documents including Terms of Reference (ToR), draft reports, and public hearing proceedings. Making these available in local languages through official portals like PARIVESH will enable meaningful public engagement.

Second, the system must mandate independent environmental audits and encourage third-party verifications of EIA data and compliance reports. This would reduce the current over-reliance on self-reporting by project developers and help maintain integrity in impact predictions and monitoring.

Third, the government should strengthen public consultation norms by enforcing prior publication requirements, improving accessibility to reports, and ensuring that local communities especially marginalised groups are empowered to participate effectively.³

Fourth, the more controversial and regressive provisions of the Draft EIA Notification 2020 such as post-facto clearances and reduced public scrutiny should be withdrawn or revised in light of widespread expert and civil society concerns.

Additionally, to align EIA with modern environmental challenges, there must be a shift toward integrating climate risk assessments and carbon footprint evaluations into the core EIA process. This would enable India to meet its international obligations under the Paris Agreement and its domestic climate goals.

Lastly, the adoption of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and tools like Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) should be institutionalised as part of the EIA and post-clearance processes. These tools help organisations assess impacts throughout the entire lifespan of a project from design to decommissioning—ensuring sustained environmental performance and long-term accountability.

These reforms, if implemented effectively, can restore public trust, protect ecological integrity, and make EIA a truly enabling instrument of sustainable development.^[24]

Conclusion

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not just a regulatory formality it is a tool meant to ensure that development does not come at the cost of environmental degradation and social injustice. Over the years, India has built a fairly comprehensive legal and institutional framework for EIA, but its implementation has often fallen short due to systemic issues like poor-quality reports, lack of transparency, and limited public involvement.

Through this article, it is evident that while laws like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification of 2006 lay a strong foundation, real progress depends on how effectively these are enforced and whether they evolve with emerging challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss. The 2020 draft notification brought to light the growing tension between economic ambitions and environmental safeguards highlighting the need for more balanced, inclusive, and science-based decision-making.

Going forward, India must prioritise reforms that make the EIA process more transparent, participatory, and environmentally responsible. Strengthening institutional capacity, ensuring independent monitoring, integrating tools like EMS and LCA, and giving meaningful space to community voices are steps that can transform EIA from a box-ticking exercise into a truly impactful mechanism for sustainable development.

As a student of environmental law and policy, I believe that public awareness, youth engagement, and legal accountability are key to ensuring that EIA continues to serve as a shield not just for ecosystems, but for future generations as well.

References

1.United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, 2nd edn (2002).

2.Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006.

3.Nivedita Khandekar, ‘EIA in India: 1994 to 2020’ (Down To Earth, 16 August 2020) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/ accessed 19 July 2025.

4. Environment (Protection) Act 1986, s 3.

5.MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006).

6.Environment (Protection) Act 1986, s 3(1).

7. MoEF, EIA Notification 1994 (S.O. 60(E), 27 January 1994).

8.MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006).

9.Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), EIA Manual (2021).

10.MoEFCC, Draft EIA Notification 2020 (S.O. 1199(E), 23 March 2020).

11.Centre for Policy Research, The Real State of Public Hearings in India (2021) https://cprindia.org accessed 19 July 2025.

12.National Environmental Policy Act 1969, Pub. L. 91-190,

13.United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), EIA Training Resource Manual, 2nd edn (2002).

14. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Environmental Impact Assessment Manual (2021); Nivedita Khandekar, ‘EIA in India: 1994 to 2020’ (Down To Earth, 16 August 2020).

15. MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006); Centre for Policy Research, The Real State of Public Hearings in India (2021).

16.MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006, S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006.

17. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Use (ISO, 2015).

18. MoEFCC, Environmental Impact Assessment Manual (2021).

19.Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Guidelines for Environmental Audit (2020).

20.SO 19011:2018, Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems.

21. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), EIA Notification 2006, Schedule IV.

22. MoEFCC, EIA Manual (2021).

23. Centre for Policy Research (CPR), The Real State of Public Hearings in India (2021) https://cprindia.org accessed 19 July 2025

24. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), PARIVESH Portal https://parivesh.nic.in accessed 19 July 2025.

^[1] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, 2nd edn (2002).

^[2] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006.

^[3] Nivedita Khandekar, ‘EIA in India: 1994 to 2020’ (Down To Earth, 16 August 2020) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/ accessed 19 July 2025.

^[4] Environment (Protection) Act 1986, s 3.

^[5] MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006).

^[6] Environment (Protection) Act 1986, s 3(1).

^[7] MoEF, EIA Notification 1994 (S.O. 60(E), 27 January 1994).

^[8] MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006).

^[9] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), EIA Manual (2021).

^[10] MoEFCC, Draft EIA Notification 2020 (S.O. 1199(E), 23 March 2020).

^[11] Centre for Policy Research, The Real State of Public Hearings in India (2021) https://cprindia.org accessed 19 July 2025.

^[12] National Environmental Policy Act 1969, Pub. L. 91-190,

^[13] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), EIA Training Resource Manual, 2nd edn (2002).

^[14] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Environmental Impact Assessment Manual (2021); Nivedita Khandekar, ‘EIA in India: 1994 to 2020’ (Down To Earth, 16 August 2020).

^[15] MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006); Centre for Policy Research, The Real State of Public Hearings in India (2021).

^[16] MoEFCC, EIA Notification 2006, S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006.

^[17] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Use (ISO, 2015).

^[18] MoEFCC, Environmental Impact Assessment Manual (2021).

^[19] Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Guidelines for Environmental Audit (2020).

^[20] SO 19011:2018, Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems.

^[21] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), EIA Notification 2006, Schedule IV.

^[22] MoEFCC, EIA Manual (2021).

^[23]Centre for Policy Research (CPR), The Real State of Public Hearings in India (2021) https://cprindia.org accessed 19 July 2025.

^[24] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), PARIVESH Portal https://parivesh.nic.in accessed 19 July 2025.