Questioning the manner in which environmental clearances are granted in the country, the Supreme Court on Friday noted that the environment ministry has for 17 long years let private companies pay ?a packet? to their favourite experts to conduct environment impact assessment of their big-budget projects, describing the arrangement a case of those who ?pay the piper call the tune?.
A Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia asked the environment ministry as to whether it has ever realised as to how such an agency, after getting its ?packet of money?, would ever give an adverse report.
Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) is a mandatory pre-condition on the basis of which the ministry clears a project deemed to be a hazard for the environment. The assessment envisages a comprehensive inspection of how a particular project would affect the bio-diversity, flora and fauna, ambient air and water quality, catchment area treatment, sub-soil water of the area in which a project is proposed.
The practice of having the miner assign an expert of his choice to write an environment report came out while the Bench was hearing the question of whether French mining giant, Lafarge, can resume its limestone mining in Meghalaya?s Khasi Hills.
Justice Aftab Alam, who accompanies Chief Justice Kapadia and Justice KS Radhakrishnan, noticed that every report placed before it was done by agencies employed by Lafarge.
Noting that he was not just on the point of Lafarge but talking in general terms, Justice Alam asked Attorney General GE Vahanvati whether any ?project proponent (company) would pay a packet of money to get an adverse report?.
?But this is how the EIA has gone on since 1994,? Vahanvati replied.
?This procedure must cost project proponents a packet. In this case, all the reports are by the agencies assigned by the project proponent… who is paying the piper and calling the tune,? Justice Alam said.
To this, the AG said he had already advised ?Mr Jairam Ramesh to have an independent mechanism?, and as of now the ministry has drawn a list of accredited agencies to conduct the EIAs. He said the government has ?various layers of control?.
Clarifying that it was not saying that any of the reports were ?perverse?, Chief Justice Kapadia joined Justice Alam to point out that the court was only saying that ?better procedures can be placed?.
At this point senior advocate Fali Nariman, appearing for Lafarge, said a separate department or infrastructure by the government for just conducting EIAs would involve ?enormous costs?.
