Environmental Impact Assessment and Control of Hazardous Waste in India

• Definition. A systematic process to identify, predict, evaluate and mitigate the biophysical, social and other relevant effects of proposed projects before major decisions are taken and commitments made.

• Origin. The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act 1969 was the first law to require EIA. Rio Declaration Principle 17 asks States to undertake EIA for proposed activities likely to have a significant adverse impact. The ICJ in Pulp Mills (2010) treated EIA as a requirement of general international law for activities with significant transboundary effects.

• India. Environmental appraisal began in 1976–77 with river valley projects. The EIA Notification of 27 January 1994 under s.3 EPA and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 made prior environmental clearance (EC) mandatory for listed projects. It was replaced by the EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006), which is the operative regime, as amended many times. A draft EIA Notification 2020 was widely criticised and has not replaced the 2006 Notification.

• Objectives: prevention, informed decision-making, public participation, sustainable development, and a record of project commitments (conditions).

Projects. The Schedule lists projects (39 items in eight broad groups, for example mining, power, primary processing, manufacturing, services, physical infrastructure, building and construction) that need prior EC. Each item has thresholds by size or capacity.

Categories.

Category B projects are classified as B1 or B2 at the screening stage, and a project located in a critically polluted area or an ecologically sensitive zone may be treated differently under the general conditions of the Notification.

The four stages of the EC process.

1. Screening (only for Category B projects): decides whether an EIA is needed (B1) or not (B2).

2. Scoping: the EAC/SEAC determines comprehensive Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EIA study, on the basis of Form 1 and a pre-feasibility report.

3. Public consultation: a public hearing near the site (organised by the State Pollution Control Board) and written responses from people likely to be affected. Certain categories are exempt, such as the modernisation of irrigation projects and expansion of highways under specified limits, and projects in industrial estates (see the Notification).

4. Appraisal and decision: the EAC/SEAC examines the EIA report and public consultation record and recommends grant or rejection; the regulatory authority decides, normally by accepting the recommendation. The prescribed timeline is about 105 days in total (60 days for appraisal, 45 days for the decision).

• After clearance: the project proponent must submit compliance reports on conditions (half-yearly), and the authority can monitor and revoke. EC validity differs by project type, with longer periods for mining and river valley projects, and has been extended in later amendments; check the current text.

• Contents of an EIA report: project description, baseline environmental data, prediction and evaluation of impacts, analysis of alternatives, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), environmental monitoring plan, risk assessment, disaster management plan, cost-benefit analysis, and summary.

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (policies, plans and programmes) versus project EIA; Cumulative impact assessment; Social Impact Assessment under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013; Environmental audit; Carrying capacity studies.

• Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2019 (under the EPA) regulates activity along coastlines (CRZ-I to IV) and requires clearance for permitted projects.

• Eco-Sensitive Zones around protected areas are notified under the EPA; critically polluted areas and the Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index are used to restrict new industries.

• Forest clearance (under the Van Adhiniyam 1980) and wildlife clearance run alongside EC; the EC is an additional, not a substitute, requirement.

• Lafarge Umiam Mining v. Union of India (2011): environmental clearances must be given on the basis of sustainable development, precaution and intergenerational equity; courts accept a role for expert bodies and for independent regulators.

• Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India (2009, Delhi High Court) on the public-notice requirement for amendments to the Notification.

• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019): EIA is not a formality; the Court held that the committee must examine cumulative impact and quashed a clearance for the Mopa airport (Goa) for want of proper appraisal and sent it back.

• Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020): ex post facto (retrospective) clearance is incompatible with the precautionary principle, save in exceptional cases.

• Vanashakti v. Union of India (May 2025) struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum on ex post facto clearances; a three-judge bench recalled the judgment on 18 November 2025 by a 2:1 majority (Justice Bhuyan dissenting) and asked that the matter be heard afresh. The position remains under consideration.

• Recent changes: a January 2025 notification exempted industrial sheds, educational institutions and hostels from EC up to a built-up area of 1,50,000 square metres (examined by the Supreme Court in 2025); late 2025 proposals sought to exempt common effluent treatment plants and common municipal solid-waste facilities; the Jan Vishwas reforms changed penalties for non-compliance. Treat all of these as developing law.

• Hazardous waste (Rule 3 of the 2016 Rules): any waste which, by reason of its physical, chemical, reactive, toxic, flammable, explosive or corrosive characteristics, causes danger or is likely to cause danger to health or environment, whether alone or in contact with other wastes or substances. It includes wastes from processes listed in Schedule I, wastes containing constituents in Schedule II above prescribed concentration limits, and wastes in Schedule III (Parts A and B, relating to Basel Convention lists). Schedule IV lists “other wastes” such as waste tyres, paper waste, metal scrap and used electronic items.

• Legal chain: Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 1989 → 2003 amendment → Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 → Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (HOWM Rules, in force 4 April 2016, replaced the 2008 Rules).

• Key features of the 2016 Rules: emphasis on waste minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery before disposal; the occupier (generator) is responsible for safe storage, packaging, labelling and disposal; authorisation from the SPCB is required for generating, handling and disposing of waste; the manifest system tracks waste from generation to disposal; storage limited to a period not exceeding 90 days (reflected in the 2024 amendment); import of hazardous waste for disposal is prohibited; import for recycling or reuse requires permission from the Ministry; Prior Informed Consent applies to transboundary movement, in line with the Basel Convention; the CPCB and SPCBs maintain inventories and develop guidelines; treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) must meet standards; Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) applies to waste tyres and used oil.

• Recent amendments: the 2024 Amendment Rules revised EPR deadlines for waste tyres and used oil, set price limits for EPR certificates and permitted import of certain pre-consumer polyethylene waste subject to conditions; the 2025 Amendment Rules (in force 1 April 2026) added a new Chapter VIII on EPR for scrap of non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper, zinc and alloys), with recycling targets rising from 10% in 2026–27 towards 75% by 2032–33, EPR certificates, a CPCB portal and environmental compensation for non-compliance.

• Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (1984) and the litigation that followed (Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India, 1989; Charan Lal Sahu, 1990) led to the EPA, the Public Liability Insurance Act and the Chapter IVA of the Factories Act.

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996): Bichhri (Rajasthan) chemical sludge from an illegal plant; the Court applied polluter pays and absolute liability and directed remediation costs.

• Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of India (2005, 2007): the Supreme Court dealt with the import and disposal of toxic waste and with an asbestos-laden vessel (the Blue Lady), in the light of the Basel Convention, and ordered a monitoring committee.

• B.L. Wadehra v. Union of India (1996): municipal solid waste in Delhi; the Court directed the municipal bodies to discharge their duties.

• M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas Leak) (1986/87): absolute liability for hazardous industries.