Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Also known as EP Act.
About the EP Act
An exemption from the prior environmental clearance required by a notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 must be specific and hedged by safeguards; an unguided blanket exemption defeats the Act's object and violates Article 14 (Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 241, paras 2, 19, 23, 25, 27). Under Section 16, a company officer cannot be prosecuted merely for his designation; the complaint must show his control of the activity, or his consent, connivance or neglect (Jai Raj v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:31845, paras 20-24, 30-34).
Key Judgments
The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a senior official of Hindustan Zinc over a 2005 gas leak at its Chittorgarh plant, holding that criminal liability cannot rest on designation alone (paras 19-34, 85-87). The complaint made only omnibus allegations, the forensic reports contradicted each other, and the private complaint under the Environment (Protection) Act merely duplicated a completed police investigation (paras 39-40, 57-66).
A day after a truck collided with an LPG tanker on the Jaipur-Ajmer highway, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of the fire (paras 1, 15). Calling the announced payments and inquiry committee insufficient (paras 12-13), the Court issued notice to the Union and the State on proposed directions for an enquiry, compensation, relocation of hazardous units, district disaster plans and black-spot safety (para 15). The petition is still pending.
A two-judge Bench split on the 2022 approval for environmental release of genetically modified mustard DMH-11. Justice Nagarathna held it vitiated for want of reasons and contrary to the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine; Justice Karol upheld it as an expert decision bound by strict conditions. Agreeing that such decisions are open to judicial review, the Bench directed a National Policy on GM crops and sent the DMH-11 question to the Chief Justice (Order, paras 1-3).
The Supreme Court quashed item 6 of Appendix-IX to the 2006 EC notification, which exempted the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines from prior environmental clearance, both as notified on 28.03.2020 and as amended on 30.08.2023. The Centre had dispensed with public objections without showing any public interest, and the exemption fixed no quantity, area or process, making it unguided and arbitrary (paras 23, 25, 32).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed eight writ petitions by makers of plastic-laminated paper used for paper cups and plates. It held that their product, 95% paper with a 5% LDPE layer, is a ‘single-use plastic commodity’ covered by the ban notified on 12.08.2021 under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, though not expressly listed (paras 47-48, 50-53). The Pollution Control Board's closure orders were within its jurisdiction, and the ban is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) (paras 60, 73, 77).