First it was Vedanta’s bauxite mining project at Niyamgiri; then it was Sterlite’s (a part of Vedanta) copper smelter at Tuticorin; now it is Posco’s steel project in Orissa. All of them had got environmental clearances in the past, and all of them now face the axe. Some of them have run the gauntlet of environmental controversy for years. Now, the environment minister has ordered a review of 49 mining leases given in Maharashtra’s Sindhudurg district. He is also known to have stopped some power station-linked coal mining projects that were cleared earlier, for the perfectly good reason that they violate tiger reserves or because they fall in “no-go” areas of thick jungle. For all one knows, more project reviews could be in the pipeline.
The story seems to involve variations of a common theme in all the cases: the mandatory environmental clearances were apparently given in the past without application of mind, or after perfunctory scrutiny, or by ignoring due process. Further, many of the projects would appear to have honoured only in the breach their commitments to mitigate unavoidable environmental damage. This is what the subsequent reviews now seem to have exposed.
This creates a piquant situation. Companies have gone ahead and invested large sums of money in projects that are now endangered. To the extent that it was the government that was at fault in giving the initial clearances, there is a legitimate case for arguing that the initial clearances should stand, or the government should make good the loss suffered by the companies because of the government’s review of its own position. Where it is the companies that are guilty of violating the conditions of clearance, of course, they have only themselves to blame.
The larger question is where this process will lead to. If reviews of environmental clearances were to be conducted wholesale, it could create mayhem. Politically, it would set the environment minister against many of his colleagues in the Council of Ministers (some of whom were in the environment ministry earlier), and against a great many businessmen whose lobbying power should not be underestimated. It would be easy in such a situation to take the view that the minister should back off, in the interest of practicality, and focus on prospective issues rather than reopen the history books. But that would be tantamount to arguing that the law should not be taken seriously, and that one should turn a blind eye to environmental violations even if one knows or suspects that they exist.
It would seem inevitable, then, that some trade-offs will have to be made. If the violations of the law are of a relatively minor nature, it would be as well to let things pass. Where they are so egregious that it would be unconscionable to ignore them, proper reviews should be followed up with appropriate executive action. Judiciousness would have to be applied to the decision-making, so as to strike a balance between the various objectives sought to be served.