- 1 KEYWORDS
- 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 3 ABBREVIATIONS
- 4 INDEX OF CASES
- 5 ABSTRACT
- 6 INTRODUCTION
- 7 THE EIA PROCESS
- 8 FORMS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- 9 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EIA
- 10 CASES THAT FORMED EIA IN INDIA
- 11 WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR EIA?
- 12 CURRENT SCENARIO OF EIA IN INDIA
- 13 ADIVASI RIGHTS AND THE EIA
- 14 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- 15 CITE THIS WORK
- 16 AUTHOR DETAILS
Environment, EIA, Adivasi, Industries
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Index of Cases
- Introduction: The EIA process and Forms of Impact Assessment
- Historical development of EIA
- Cases that formed EIA
- Why is there a need for an environmental assessment?
- Current Scenario of EIA in India
- Adivasi’s rights and Environmental Impact Assessment
- Conclusion and recommendations
- EIA – Environment Impact Assessment
- HIA – Health Impact Assessment
- SIA – Social Impact Assessment
- SEA – Social Environmental Assessment
- NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act, 1970
- OECD – Organization Economic Corporation and Development
- UNCED – United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
- Espoo – Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context
- LPG – Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization
- MoEFCC – Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change
- EC – Environment Clearance
- EPA – Environment Protection Act, 1986
- NGT – National Green Tribunal
- OIL – Oil India Limited
- PIL – Public Interest Litigation
- FRA – Forest Rights Act, 2006
- PESA – Provisions of the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
INDEX OF CASES
- Narmada Bachao Andholan vs State of Madhya Pradesh –  10 SCC 664
- Union Carbide Case – 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540
- Utkarsh Mandal vs. Union of India – (9340) of 2009 DH
- Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan and Another v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Others – Appeal No. 3/2011 (T) (NEAA No. 26 of 2009). The judgment of Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal on 20 April 2012.
- Common Cause v. Union of India – MANU/SC/0821/1994
- Alembic Pharmaceuticals vs Rohit Prajapati & Ors. – (2020) 4MLJ 277
- Murugandam v. Ministry of Environment and Forests – MANU/GT/0033/2012
- Ossie Fernandes v Ministry of Environment and Forests – MANU/GT/0035/2012
- Vikrant Tongad v. Union of India – MANU/DE/1326/2020.
Environmental Impact Assessment is defined as a study to assess the effect of a proposed activity or a project on the environment. The social, cultural, environmental and health effects are considered as an integral part of the environmental assessment process. It is assumed and understood that with the practice of environmental assessment, there could be prevention, mitigation and offsetting the adverse effects of the proposed undertakings. The purpose of EIA is to provide information for decision making on the environmental consequences of proposed actions. Additionally, it serves to promote environmentally sound practices through the identification of appropriate enhancement and mitigation measures.
The EIA is practised in many developed and is being adopted by developing countries. India in the year 1994 has adopted legislation for the environmental impact assessment under the Environmental (Protection) Act of 1986 and subsequently the legislation was amended time to time with growing needs of the country through various notifications. In 2020 a draft notification was published which supersedes the 2006 notification.
The new notification exempts a list of projects from previous requirements-mainly projects involving renewable energy, solar thermal power projects, coal and non-coal mineral prospecting. Further, the latest EIA notification endangers public participation. The period for public consultation is reduced from 30 days to 20 days. This reduction could exclude some marginalized groups of people from the consultation.
This paper aims to understand the need for environmental protection by understanding the assessment process and the forms of impact assessment. This paper tries to understand the historical development of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the situations that led to adopting this legislation in India. Further, an analysis is made on the new draft notification of 2020 and tries to enumerate and highlight the rights of Adivasi’s which are at stake through the draft notification published by the Government in early 2020.
The paper concludes by providing suggestions on how Environmental Impact Assessment whilst being necessary must be mindful of sustainable practices especially, in times of ecological distress as well as protect the rights of communities from industrial takeover.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) proposes measures to mitigate the adverse effects and predicts whether there will be significant adverse environmental damage even after the criteria for mitigation are implemented.
It is understood that by considering the environmental assessment and their mitigation in the early project planning, environment assessment could help in the protection of the environment by creating optimum utilization of resources and conserving the rights of the marginalized sections of the society which live on the use of natural resources by promoting community participation.
THE EIA PROCESS
The environment impact assessment consists of eight steps, with each step equally crucial in determining the overall performance of the project. Typically, the EIA process begins with screening to ensure time and resources are directed at the proposals that matter environmentally and ends with some form of follow up on the implementation of the decisions and actions taken as a result of an EIA report. The eight steps of the EIA process are presented in brief below:
- Screening: First stage of EIA, which determines whether the proposed project, requires an EIA and if it does, then the level of assessment is required.
- Scoping: This stage identifies the key issues and impacts that should be further investigated. This stage also defines the boundary and time limit of the study.
- Impact analysis: This stage of EIA identifies and predicts the likely environmental and social impact of the proposed project and evaluates the significance.
- Mitigation: This step in EIA recommends the actions to reduce and avoid the potential adverse environmental consequences of development activities.
- Reporting: This stage presents the result of EIA in the form of a report to the decision-making body and other interested parties.
- Review of EIA: It examines the adequacy and effectiveness of the EIA report and provides the information necessary for decision-making.
- Decision-making: It decides whether the project is rejected, approved or needs further change.
- Post monitoring: This stage comes into play once the project is commissioned. It checks to ensure that the impacts of the project do not exceed the legal standards and implementation of the mitigation measures are in the manner as described in the EIA report. 
FORMS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT
There are various forms of impact assessment such as Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) that are used to assess the health and social consequences of development so that they are taken into consideration along with the environmental assessment. One of the forms of impact assessment is a strategic environmental assessment, which is briefly discussed below:
1. Strategic Environment Assessment
Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) refers to the systematic analysis of the environmental effects of development policies, plans, programmes and other proposed strategic actions. This process extends the aims and principles of EIA upstream in the decision-making process, beyond the project level and when effective alternatives are still open. SEA represents a proactive approach to integrating environmental considerations into the higher levels of decision-making.
2. Health Impact Assessment
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides a framework and procedure for estimating the impact of a proposed programme or policy action on a selected environmental health issue for a defined population. HIA seeks to improve the quality of policy decisions by evaluating the likely positive and negative health impacts from proposed programmes or policies and making recommendations to enhance positive health impacts and mitigate negative ones. HIA stresses the participation of public stakeholders and provides for a social model of health and well-being in which there is an explicit focus on equity, sustainability and social justice, and a commitment to openness and public scrutiny
The legal, methodological and procedural foundations of EIA have their roots at the National Environmental Policy Act, 1970 (NEPA) in the United States. At an international platform lending banks such as the world bank, OECD, Asian Development Bank and other major financial and non-financial institutions, bilateral aid agencies apply EIA procedures to borrow. Most developing countries have also embraced EIA by formalizing it through their domestic legislations.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EIA
Before the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the United States in 1970, project planning was limited to reviewing based on technical engineering, and economic analysis and no specific importance was given to environmental consequences.
With the introduction of NEPA, there was standard guidelines, procedure and methodologies used for impact analysis by including public participation. Following the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also adopted EIA into their municipal legislation.
By the mid-1980s, the EIA process spread to Asia and other developing countries and the world bank and other leading international aid agencies started to establish environmental assessment requirements. EIA has gained international legal importance through various international conventions as well.
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context (Espoo 1991)
The Espoo (EIA) Convention sets out the obligations of Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992
The conference enunciated a catalogue of environmental principles including sustainable development, precautionary principle, and environmental impact assessment.
Moreover, international treaties such as the Rio Declaration, the Paris Agreement have also incorporated the EIA procedures in their treaties and agreements. Sustainability and principle global issues received attention under the Espoo convention in the 1990s and India has also formally adopted EIA, and there was a rapid growth in environmental assessment.
CASES THAT FORMED EIA IN INDIA
India started assessing its natural resources and started expanding its industrialization from the 1960s. By 1970s it had begun to examine its river-valley and other excavation projects with an environmental conservation point of view. During the 1980s, Public advocacy relating to safeguarding environment, equal use of resources and the rights of marginalized sections especially the Adivasi’s in rapid industrialization gained importance through the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan vs State of Madhya Pradesh where the Adivasi’s fought against the proposed river-valley project which replaces the livelihood of the Adivasi’s and merges a massive amount of flora and fauna. This decision was supported with cases such as the Union Carbide Case which is also famously known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy where through the negligence of the authorities a gas leak was caused which has caused massive destruction to the human environment for generations. These incidents accounted for a legal regime on environmental impact assessment.
Till 1994, environmental clearance from the Central Government was an administrative decision and lacked legislative support. On 27 January 1994, the then Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, under the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986, promulgated an EIA notification making Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for expansion or modernization of any activity or for setting up new projects listed in Schedule 1 of the notification. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) notified new EIA legislation in September 2006. The notification makes it mandatory for various projects such as mining, thermal power plants, river valley, infrastructure (road, highway, ports, harbours and airports) and industries including very small electroplating or foundry units to get environment clearance. However, unlike the EIA Notification of 1994, the new legislation has put the onus of clearing projects on the state government depending on the size and capacity of the project.
After the incorporation of the EIA into the environmental legislations, Indian courts had recognized and prioritized the importance of environmental assessment in the case of Utkarsh Mandal vs Union of India where the question before the court was the executive summary of the EIA which is available at least 30 days before the public hearing would that vitiate the environmental clearance. It was held that for project-affected persons to meaningfully participate in a public hearing, they must have the full information of the pros and cons of the proposed project and the impact it is likely to have on the environment of the area. The EIA report is not in the public domain until the public hearing. Unless it is made available mandatorily, the project affected persons would not know the environmental impact of the project.
The legislation not only evolved as a purely technical assessment scheme but also as a sphere for the attainment of natural justice and democracy by including public participation. However, in earlier times, the public hearing was not given importance and was conducted merely as an administrative procedure. It was well laid that the conduct of public hearings in an improper manner has also emerged as a common ground for challenging environmental approvals. In Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan and Another v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Others, the evidence of persons who voiced their opposition to the project was not recorded, and no summary of the public hearing was prepared in the local language nor was it made public and therefore the Court declared the approval invalid.
The courts have tried to form meaning, preserved and protected the objectives of the legislation through various cases and have also tried to reduce the loopholes and have managed to pronounce judgments based on the environmental concern. The EIA notifications were timely amended to adapt to the growing needs of the industrialization and environmental conservation.
WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR EIA?
With climate change looming over the planet, environmentally friendly legislations help in preventing further damage to the biodiversity. The fundamental logic behind EIA is to address climate change and the harmful effects of it while taking active steps to prevent further damage from taking place and thereby by protecting the ecology. In India, based on the Annual report published by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate change, 11,467.83 hectares of forest land were diverted for development projects. Being a developing country, India relies on a developmental model that focuses on increasing its economic growth to match that of developed nations, but this comes at the cost of losing its biodiversity to industries.
EIA comes into the picture to act as a mechanism to ensure that industrial development does not come at the cost of compromising on the biodiversity. With measures like scoping, public consultation aims to increase the transparency to the citizens as well about projects taking place and places the onus of responsibility of sustainable development on the industries. EIA helps to identify potential problems and help find alternatives with fewer risks for the project. This is especially important in a time where there is an urgency to protect the world from irreversible climate damage.
CURRENT SCENARIO OF EIA IN INDIA
The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification of 2020 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change caused outrage leading to mass protests. This Draft falls under the Environment Protection Act of 1986 (EPA) which sought to replace the EIA notification of 2006. The First Draft of environmental Impact Assessment came into existence in India, in the year 1994, followed by the 2006 amendment, which now seeks to be replaced by the 2020 notification.
The EIA notification was brought in by the Government a little post LPG which shaped India in the 1990s to ensure that industrial development did not compromise on environmental safeguards and called for a more active approach for sustainable development practices by industries and laid down rules and regulations for the setting up and expansion of projects.
The 2006 EIA failed to address the larger picture of sustainable development, while decentralizing the process. The 2006 EIA leans towards favouring development over sustainability. While specific functions like that of scoping and Public hearing helped to bring some transparency and accountability, processes like decentralization allowed a more systematic way of division of labour and increased bureaucracy.
The 2020 EIA increases the arbitrariness of the Bureaucratic institutions. For example, Clause 22 of the notification allows for an ex post facto clearance. This is where projects that have not been given any clearance can still go ahead with their operation. This devalues the need for an EIA itself and could lead to severe accidents.
The concept of “ex post facto” was held as ‘unsustainable to the concept of environmental law’ by a division bench of the Supreme Court. This was where the Common Cause v. Union of India judgment was relied upon stating that, such a clearance would lead to irreparable damage to the biodiversity. In the case of Alembic Pharmaceutical v. Rohit Prajapati & Ors, in 2020, the Draft notification has not amended the clause by stating that the clause does not violate any legal principle and would not be amended unless proven so.
While projects are now divided into three categories of projects (A, B1 and B2) the notification also seems to remove the public consultation clause for an entire category of projects (B2 category) and excludes B2 category from the purview of scoping. An entire category is exempt from an EIA report and the public consultation. Both of which are crucial for the EIA process. B2 Category of projects includes construction and building development, dump mining and biomedical waste management which are activities that cause a massive strain on the natural resources such as pollution of air, water and soil, destruction of flora and fauna, loss of forest land, and erosion of soil to name a few.
The Draft now has two kinds of environmental clearances, one being a Prior Environmental Clearance and the other a Prior Environmental Permission where the latter does not require the recommendation of the appraisal committee, the public consultation period is now reduced to 20 days from the earlier limit of 30 days. Instead, it gives more time for submitting a compliance report by the Project head by a full year instead of the previous deadline of 6 months. This Draft not only removes transparency of public consultation in a category that includes projects that need a system of checks and balances but exempting these categories will, as seen historically, put people under the mercy of industrial land grabbing in the garb of development. The NGT observed in the case of Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan & anr. v. Ministry of Environment and Forest that the process of public hearing for environmental clearance was a gross violation of the law as not only was the process a pretence but the EC submitted with the consent of the Gram Sabha was found to a false EC furnished, and directed that the Public hearing process be reconducted, emphasizing on its importance to the process of EIA.
The Styrene Gas leak in an LG polymers Plant in 2020 was a result of the lack of any environmental clearances since 1999, and the OIL blowout in Assam are just a few examples of how disastrous allowing post facto clearance could be. The 2020 Draft seems to place industries in a position of power to forego specific important clearances; this doesn’t promote sustainability but instead supports the notion of anti-biodiversity. Because of this, this piece of notification goes against International Environmental Agreements and Conventions to which India is a signatory, most notably the Paris Agreement, and with this notification, India will not be able to meet its 2030 goal to reduce global warming and reduce its carbon emission which it seemingly is compromising for the façade of development. This also goes against the NGT judgements of two historical cases where directions were given to ensure transparency of the public consultation process of the EIA, wherein the case of T. Murugandam v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, the NGT laid down guidelines for the transparency in the EIA process and subsequently, in the case of Ossie Fernandes v Ministry of Environment and Forests, stated further instructions to the Ministry to follow a strict mechanism while writing the EIA report following the terms of Reference.
The Draft, after being published in the Official Gazette, during the said notice period, which was extended to a total of 90 days received, close to 17 lakhs objections by various activists, NGO’s, students, working professionals and politicians in a movement of environmental activism, and this speaks volumes about how criticized this Draft is, and how damaging it could be to the ecology.
ADIVASI RIGHTS AND THE EIA
The Adivasi community in the country will bear the biggest brunt left by this notification due to its nature of being heavily discretionary and non-transparent.
Already marginalized and misunderstood the community is continuously harassed and bullied by the central Government and the forest officials, especially when it comes to land acquisition. This piece of legislation is another Brahmanical piece of legislation favouring the ones of the so-called “upper castes” while further marginalizing the Adivasis, and is a notification of systemic oppression.
While the Forest Rights Act of 2006 provides them with means to hold the title for the land, in reality, coercion, harassment, land grabbing and displacement has become the norm, making them extremely vulnerable.
One of the many ways the EIA draft published seems to disempower the Adivasis is by releasing the Gazette only in two languages, i.e. Hindi and English, which, according to the last census, in 2011, only a meagre number of 43.63% of Indians speak Hindi or know Hindi. A writ petition was filed in The Delhi High Court, Vikrant Tongad v. Union of India  where the court directed the Ministry to release the Draft Notification in languages specified under the Eighth Schedule of the constitution to ensure that there was broader dissemination of the Draft to the Non-English and Hindi Speaking public and invite more public consultation by extending the previous notice period deadline to 11 August 2020. While a PIL in the Karnataka High Court, saw the court directing the Ministry of Environment to withhold publishing the final Draft until 2020 and showed concerned over the lack of the centre’s responsibility to publish the Draft in the languages mentioned in the Eighth Schedule, but, this still leaves many people from even knowing about this notification. The Eighth Schedule has 22 languages included, and these languages are seen as the major languages in India by the Minorities Commission Report as well as the Official Language Resolution, but these as the name suggests are only the major languages, and not by any means, “all” languages, The Adivasi Community in India has over 200 tribes speaking over 100 languages, and the 2011 census report stated that there are about 121 languages spoken in India. Because of this, even if the Draft is published in vernacular languages of the state, the Adivasi community is still at a considerable disadvantage.
The Draft also seems to undermine the Forest Rights Act of 2006, and the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, two legislations that were brought to empower the Adivasi and the Forest Dwelling community in India. The Draft Notification’s shorter period of public consultation seems to override Section 5 of the FRA, which empowers the Gram Sabha to consent for a project to take place or not if the said project adversely affects the forest land, wildlife and the biodiversity. The Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 that came into existence based on the recommendation of the Bhuria Committee report of 1995 as an extension of the provision of Part IX of the constitution of India with regards to Local self-governments to Scheduled Areas, and section 4 (i) states that Gram Sabha’s or the panchayat’s in these areas must be consulted before the acquisition of these lands for any developmental projects and before the rehabilitation and resettlements of the affected persons. With no public consultation for exempted projects for development (B2 category) the EIA draft goes against the provisions established in the PESA Act, and the Forest Rights Act, two critical legislations protecting Adivasi Rights, which is, concerning at the very least.
For Forest Dwellers and Adivasis, the land they live in holds intrinsic value for them, land that they are at the risk of losing to industrial development leading to a constant tug of war between the establishment and the people, as seen with the Adani Construction predicament, where the heavy-handed conglomerate Adani won a contract for coal mining in the Hasdeo Arand Forests in Chhattisgarh, despite mass outcry from the Adivasis who live there for saving one of the forests. According to a report in The Hindu by Mr Satyasundar Barik, despite the Landmark Niyamgiri Judgement, the Dongria Kondhs in Orissa still face problems including that of being suspected as Maoists and Naxalites by the Forest Police.
Most of the Adivasis barely know the rights available to them under the FRA and due to the constant harassment and the SC’s order on eviction of Adivasis from their land, feel betrayed and tricked of the land that they have inhabited for centuries. Forced displacements often put them under enormous financial burden as well as takes a toll on their health, livelihood, and sustenance forcing them to move to cities and work as daily wage labourers for a paltry sum. Displacement after Govt Acquisition for development projects also causes people to change their occupation and wait for compensation that was promised. Often, due to this, they are taken advantage of and struggle to make a steady living due to the constant exploitation, and vulnerability they face, aside from being treated as “outsiders” not just by city dwellers and employers, but Govt. Officials as well. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, more than 70 million people in India have been subjected to displacement due to development post-Independence.
More often than not due to the heavy bureaucracy, displaced persons still have not been rehabilitated nor have they been compensated for the land taken from them by the Government for projects, The Sardar Sarovar Dam or the Narmada dam whose construction led to the infamous Narmada Bachao Andolan, and led to the displacement of close to 200,000 people, out of which close to 56% were Adivasis, many of who were never adequately compensated or rehabilitated as the Government promised. Clearly shows the struggle of Adivasis and how they are treated as “disposables” when it comes to development and economic growth.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While there is a need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to protect and preserve the ecology, it must be understood that protecting Adivasis from exploitation goes hand in hand with preserving nature. The Draft Notification of the Environmental Impact Assessment is incongruent with environmental protection and takes away the voice of agency from the Adivasi Community. The EIA must seek not to protect the Industries and the conglomerates under the veil of development but rather seek to preserve the natural diversity and fulfil its obligations under the Paris Agreement for which India is a signatory.
By exempting categories of projects that are not sustainable from scoping, public scrutiny and including post facto clearances can endanger the tenets of environmental law and the concept of sustainability impacting the lives of people and generations that have been treated unjustly for centuries at the hand of the Government and legislations that use them as vote banks but sees no mercy in evicting them from their land for projects that will deplete our resources.
What must be done is that the existing weak EIA clauses such as the Redressal mechanism under the 2006 notification must be strengthened, Compliance mechanism’s must be made more stringent rather than bureaucratic especially holding officers accountable for their actions. Instead of exempting development projects from the purview of EIA, the process must be made mandatory for all kinds of projects to fulfil the principles of environmental laws.
To ensure transparency, Gram Sabha’s of each scheduled area can be sent a translated copy of the notification and well as information of any projects, which could be effectively disseminated to the locals of that area as more often than not, they are unaware of the developments around them due to the negligent attitude of the EC officers where they often overlook taking the public opinion from these villages and barely hold these steps, which even if they do, is for the namesake.
The Directions given for Public hearing and consent must be followed not just as a mere formality but rather as a step to protect the interest of the biodiversity.
An independent authority can be set up at state level to oversee the EIA process to increase transparency and reduce the bureaucratic influence, having experts such as environmentalists, NGO’s, representatives from the Adivasi community will ensure that the interest of these communities are not compromised
As Dr Ram Dayal Munda, a tribal rights activist, and scholar said “To separate the Adivasi from his land is to stop his breathing”, Adivasi’s all over the country have for centuries protected the forests and the animals without harming them. Climate Emergencies due to negligent industrial practices are primarily due to industries forgoing steps of sustainable development practices and not because of Adivasi’s, who don’t cause harm to the environment but rather are an integral part of these forests. The necessity of Environmental Impact Assessment cannot be denied, and steps should be taken to make right the irregularities in the 2006 Notification, what it lacked upon, instead of introducing clauses and having exceptions in such a way that further pushes away from the principle of Environmental Protection, by excluding Adivasis from an umbrella of protection under EIA, and instead of granting that protection to Industries that seek to exploit the land.
Legislations/ Acts/ Drafts –
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006
http://www.environmentwb.gov.in/pdf/EIA Notification, 2006.pdf
- The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006
- The Panchayats (Extension To The Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, No.40 OF 1996
- The Forest Rights Act,2006, Act, Rules and Guidelines
- Annual 2019-2020, Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change, Page 37, Table 2.3 and 2.4, Statement Showing State Wise Total Forest Area
approved for use of Non-Forestry Purpose Under FC ACT, 1980,
- Census of India 2011.https://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/C-16_25062018_NEW.pdf
- Status of policing in India Reports 2018, A study of performance and perceptions by
Common Cause, https://www.commoncause.in/pdf/SPIR-2018-c-v.pdf
Research Papers –
- “Environmental Impact assessment: A critique on Indian law and practices By Dr.
Vikrant Sopan Yadav, Assistant Professor, Modern Law College, Pune, Maharashtra,
India”, ISSN: 2349-4182, Volume 5; Issue 1; January 2018; Page No. 01-05,
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
- Public hearings and Environmental Clearance Process: Review of Judicial
Intervention by M P Ram Mohan & Himanshu Pabreja, 10 December, 2016, Volume
LI No 50, Economic and Political Weekly
  10 S.C.C. 664
 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540
 (9340) of 2009 DH
 Appeal No. 3/2011 (T) (NEAA No. 26 of 2009). Judgment of Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal on April 20, 2012.
 Annual 2019-2020, Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Page 37, Table 2.3 and 2.4, Statement Showing State Wise Total Forest Area approved for use of Non Forestry Purpose Under FC ACT, 1980, http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ENVIRONMENT-AR-ENGLISH-2020.pdf
 “Development at the cost of environment!” by Mowdud Rahman, dated, Jun 05,2018, https://www.newagebd.net/article/42860/development-at-the-cost-of-environment
 Importance of Environmental Impact Assessment in India by Narendra Kumar, dated July 11, 2019, https://enterslice.com/learning/importance-of-environmental-impact-assessment/
 Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting, 28 March 2019, GA/12131, https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm
 The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1986-29.pdf
 http://www.environmentwb.gov.in/pdf/EIA Notification, 2006.pdf
 “Draft EIA 2020: No rethink on ‘post facto’ nod unless good legal rationale, says Secy”https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/no-rethink-on-post-facto-nod-unless-good-legal-rationale-secy/articleshow/77491907.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
 Clause 12 (1), The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020.
 Clause 13(11) The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020
 Clause 14 (2)(d), The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020.
 List of projects requiring prior environment clearance or prior environment permission, as the case may be, Schedule , The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020
 Clause 1(40), The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020.
 Clause 1(41), The Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020.
 Appeal no. 3/2011(T) NEAA no. 26 of 2009)
 Article titled “Vizag gas leak: Don’t have green nod, company told state last May” – May 8th 2020. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/vizag-gas-leak-lg-polymers-india-green-nod-6399440/lite/
 Most countries aren’t hitting 2030 climate goals, and everyone will pay the price, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions/
 Article Titled “Environment ministry says 17 lakh comments on draft EIA notification” https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/environment-ministry-says-17-lakh-comments-on-draft-eia-notification/story-hIZhPzTM185fplOCeAAjGI.html
 Page 16, Language, Indian Union, States & Territories, Census of India 2011. https://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/C-16_25062018_NEW.pdf
 United Conservation Movement Charitable and Welfare Trust (UCM) v Union of India WP. 8632/2020 (PIL) Kar HC (Karnataka High Court).
 https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/india-is-home-to-more-than-19500-mother-tongues/article24305725.ece “India is home to more than 19,500 mother tongues”
 Section 4, PESA,1996, THE PROVISIONS OF THE PANCHAYATS (EXTENSION TO THE SCHEDULED AREAS) ACT, 1996, No.40 OF 1996
 https://india.mongabay.com/2019/03/the-hasdeo-arand-story-is-coal-mining-a-fait-accompli-for-the-pristine-forests/ “ The Hasdeo Arand story: Is coal mining a fait accompli for the pristine forests?”
 Dongria Kondhs continue to fight bauxite mining in Odisha’s Niyamgiri forests – https://www.thehindu.com/society/dongria-kondhs-continue-to-fight-bauxite-mining-in-odishas-niyamgiri-forests/article26544621.ece
 The People behind Dams, Mines, Riverfront “development” Projects, Dated April 2016, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. https://www.internal-displacement.org/expert-opinion/the-people-behind-the-dams-mines-riverfront-development-projects
 Medha Patkar and Baba Amte / Narmada Bachao Andolan ( 1991 , India) https://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/laureates/medha-patkar-and-baba-amte-narmada-bachao-andolan/
 Displacement And Development: Construction Of The Sardar Dam, Dated September 1999, by Thakkar Himanshu, https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/displacement-and-development-construction-sardar dam#:~:text=The%20case%20of%20adivasis%20affected,%2C%20Maharashtra%2C%20and%20Madhya%20Pradesh.
 Three decades on, many Sardar Sarovar Dam affected persons still await rehabilitation dated 13th July 2020, by Priyanka Kavish, https://sabrangindia.in/article/three-decades-many-sardar-sarovar-dam-affected-persons-still-await-rehabilitation
 Paper Titled “Environmental Impact assessment: A critique on Indian law and practices By Dr. Vikrant Sopan Yadav, Assistant Professor, Modern Law College, Pune, Maharashtra, India”, ISSN: 2349-4182, Volume 5; Issue 1; January 2018; Page No. 01-05, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development