Published on: 11th December 2025
Authored by: Harini R
Saveetha School of Law
Abstract
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has emerged as a critical instrument in India to balance economic development with environmental protection. Introduced under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and operationalized through the EIA Notifications of 1994 and 2006, it mandates prior environmental clearance for projects likely to have significant ecological impacts (2)(4)(5). This article examines the legal and policy framework, procedural implementation, and judicial interpretation of EIA in India. It also highlights practical challenges, including limited public participation, inadequate monitoring, and enforcement gaps. Finally, the paper suggests measures to strengthen the EIA system to achieve sustainable development and environmental justice.
Introduction
India’s rapid economic growth over recent decades has brought substantial environmental challenges. Industrial expansion, urbanization, mining, infrastructure projects, and large-scale energy development often result in deforestation, biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, and adverse effects on human health. Recognizing the need to anticipate and mitigate such impacts, the EIA system was introduced as a preventive mechanism to evaluate environmental consequences before project approval. Unlike traditional reactive regulation, EIA integrates environmental considerations at the earliest stages of decision-making, ensuring development does not compromise ecological integrity.
The Indian EIA system represents a convergence of statutory law, administrative regulation, and judicial oversight (6). Over time, it has evolved from a procedural requirement to a substantive mechanism informing project planning, public participation, and enforcement. Courts in India have repeatedly emphasized the importance of EIA, interpreting the right to a healthy environment as part of the fundamental right to life (1). In this context, EIA functions both as an instrument of environmental governance and as a platform for participatory democracy, giving affected communities a voice in decisions that shape their environment and livelihoods.
Legal & Constitutional Framework
The constitutional basis for environmental protection in India lies in both fundamental duties and directive principles of state policy. Article 48A obliges the State to protect and improve the natural environment, while Article 51A(g) places a corresponding duty on every citizen to safeguard forests, wildlife, and ecological balance (1). The judiciary has expanded Article 21’s scope, recognizing that the right to life encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment. In landmark decisions, such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (13), the Supreme Court emphasized that environmental considerations must guide developmental decision-making, and projects cannot proceed without prior clearance based on a thorough EIA.
The primary statutory authority for EIA in India is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (2), enacted in response to industrial disasters such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to take measures for environmental protection and improvement, including issuing rules and notifications governing EIA procedures. Under this authority, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) introduced the EIA Notification of 1994 (4), later updated in 2006 (5) to provide a more structured framework. The 2006 Notification identifies projects requiring environmental clearance, categorizes them based on potential environmental impact, and establishes procedures for appraisal, public consultation, and post-clearance monitoring. Complementary laws, including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, reinforce the EIA regime with sector-specific safeguards (6).
Policy Rationale & Institutional Framework
The policy rationale behind EIA is grounded in environmental principles such as the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle (12). By mandating prior assessment, EIA encourages project proponents and regulators to identify potential impacts, explore alternatives, and propose mitigation strategies. It shifts governance from a reactive enforcement model to a proactive planning approach, minimizing ecological and social harm.
Institutionally, the MoEFCC oversees the EIA process at the central level, while State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) and State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC) handle projects at the state level. Projects are classified as Category A or B based on scale and potential impact, with Category A projects requiring central appraisal and Category B projects assessed at the state level (6). Expert Appraisal Committees, composed of environmental scientists, ecologists, and public health experts, evaluate EIA reports and recommend clearance, conditional clearance, or rejection. Public hearings are an essential component, providing affected communities a platform to express concerns. By combining scientific evaluation, public participation, and administrative oversight, the EIA process embodies a multi-layered governance approach (15).
The EIA Process in Practice
The EIA process unfolds in multiple stages, beginning with screening to determine if a project requires an EIA. Projects likely to cause significant environmental degradation undergo scoping to define study methodology and baseline data requirements. The project proponent then prepares an Environmental Impact Assessment report, identifying potential impacts and proposing mitigation measures (12).
Public consultation is integral. Draft reports are shared with stakeholders, and public hearings allow communities to raise concerns about ecological, social, and economic impacts. Feedback is incorporated into the final report, which expert committees appraise. The appraisal may result in project clearance, conditional clearance, or rejection. Post-clearance monitoring ensures compliance with stipulated conditions, and approvals can be revoked if violations occur (14).
In practice, several challenges persist. Many EIA reports rely heavily on data provided by project consultants, creating potential conflicts of interest. Public hearings, though mandatory, are often perfunctory or poorly publicized, limiting meaningful participation (15). Enforcement of post-clearance conditions is uneven, and cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a region are frequently overlooked (17) These gaps underscore the need for stronger institutions and greater transparency (16).
Judicial Oversight & Challenges
Indian courts have been pivotal in reinforcing the EIA framework. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (13), the Supreme Court stressed that environmental clearance without a proper EIA violates the fundamental right to life. The judiciary has also addressed post-facto approvals, inadequate public participation, and non-compliance with mitigation measures, shaping EIA practice (14).
Despite judicial intervention, challenges remain. The quality of EIA reports varies widely, with some lacking robust scientific data or thorough analysis. Public participation, though legally mandated, is often tokenistic (15). Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms remain weak, and cumulative environmental impacts are rarely addressed comprehensively (17).
Recent Developments & Critiques
The Draft EIA Notification of 2020 (18) generated debate by proposing post-facto clearances for certain projects and reducing public consultation requirements. Critics argued these measures could weaken environmental safeguards. Meanwhile, technological innovations such as online submission portals, real-time tracking, and increased transparency are modernizing the process (19). Environmental assessments are gradually incorporating climate change, biodiversity, and ecosystem services considerations, reflecting a more holistic understanding of sustainable development.
Recommendations for Strengthening EIA
To enhance the effectiveness of EIA, several reforms are essential:
- Independent Third-Party Review
EIA reports should be evaluated by accredited, independent experts to ensure objectivity and scientific rigor, reducing conflicts of interest from project proponents (17).
- Regional and Cumulative Impact Assessment
EIAs should consider broader ecological impacts by assessing cumulative effects of multiple projects in a region, preventing piecemeal environmental degradation (17).
- Strengthened Public Engagement
Public participation must be meaningful, with early disclosure of draft reports in local languages and mechanisms for communities to influence project design and mitigation measures (15).
- Robust Post-Clearance Monitoring
Monitoring and enforcement of clearance conditions should be strengthened through regular inspections, technological tools, and strict penalties for non-compliance (16).
- Integration of Climate, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services
EIAs should incorporate climate risk, biodiversity protection, and ecosystem service assessments to ensure development aligns with long-term environmental sustainability (19).
- Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening
Environmental authorities need enhanced technical expertise and inter-agency coordination to process EIAs efficiently and enforce compliance effectively (16).
- Transparency and Digitalization
Comprehensive digital access to EIA reports, approvals, and compliance records can improve accountability, public awareness, and citizen participation (19).
Conclusion
The EIA system in India is a crucial tool for sustainable development, providing a structured mechanism to anticipate and mitigate environmental impacts before projects proceed. Legal mandates, institutional structures, and judicial oversight have evolved to align development with ecological integrity (6). Yet, challenges in implementation, monitoring, and public participation persist. Strengthening institutional capacity, enhancing transparency, improving public engagement, and enforcing compliance are critical to realizing the full potential of EIA as a mechanism for sustainable and inclusive development. By doing so, India can pursue economic growth without compromising environmental health or citizen well-being (19).
References
(1) Constitution of India, art. 21, 48A, 51A(g).
(2) The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, § 3 (India).
(4) Ministry of Environment and Forests, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, S.O. 60(E) (Jan. 27, 1994) (India).
(5) Ministry of Environment and Forests, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, S.O. 1533(E) (Sept. 14, 2006) (India).
(6) V. Raman, Environmental Law in India 45 (LexisNexis 2019).
(12) Centre for Science and Environment, Understanding EIA (2020).
(13) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 1 (India).
(14) IIPRD, Reforming Environmental Impact Assessment in Indian Mining (2021).
(15) Centre for Policy Research, Public Participation in EIA (2019).
(16) Doon Law Mentor, Environmental Impact Assessment Laws in India: Top Challenges Ahead (2020).
(17) National Green Tribunal, Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (NGT Order, 2018).
(18) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Draft EIA Notification (2020) (India).
(19) Id.; V. Raman, supra note 6.
