Q7 · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks · 2 min read

← Q6 Q8 →

How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

Topic: Environment and Conservation. Syllabus: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2020 and Environment and Conservation.

Revision summary

EIA 2006 is the notified prior environmental clearance system under the EP Act. Draft EIA 2020 proposed post-facto clearance, shorter and narrower public hearings, and more exemptions. It also sketched more central discretion and lighter post-clearance watch. The 2020 text was a draft for comments, not a replacement gazette. Naming 2020 as enacted EIA law is a factual error.

Model answer

Introduction

EIA in India is a subordinate notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The EIA Notification, 2006 is still the notified procedure for prior environmental clearance. The draft EIA Notification, 2020 was a MoEFCC proposal put out for comment. It was not brought into force as a final gazette replacing 2006. Any comparison is draft versus living law, not old Act versus new Act.

Body

What EIA 2006 actually is

  • It is the notified regime: screening, scoping, public consultation, and appraisal, with Category A (MoEFCC and EAC) and Category B (SEIAA and SEAC).
  • Prior environmental clearance is required before a listed project is built or expanded, subject to the schedule.
  • Public hearing is a defined step for many Category A and B1 projects, with a notice window and a role for the local affected public, not only for files in Delhi.
  • Post-clearance compliance is supposed to be monitored; violation is not meant to be a parallel easy door.

How the 2020 draft proposed to differ

  • Post-facto (ex-post facto) clearance: the draft sketched a path to regularise projects that had already started without EC, with penalty. That is a break from the 2006 logic of prior clearance. Courts have since treated post-facto environmental clearance with deep suspicion; the draft’s politics were exactly this dilution.
  • Public consultation thinned: shorter hearing windows, more project types moved toward B2 (no EIA, no hearing), and wider exemptions for ‘strategic’, border, and some linear or expansion cases. 2006 already had exemptions; the draft widened them.
  • Centralisation and discretion: more items pulled toward the Centre; ‘strategic’ labelling could reduce disclosure.
  • Compliance self-reporting and longer validity of clearances were proposed, which critics read as weaker watch after the stamp.
  • Modernisation and expansion were to face lighter rungs than a new project, raising the risk of cumulative load without a fresh public test.

What did not happen

  • The draft drew large public and scientific objection in 2020. No final 2020 EIA notification replaced 2006.
  • Clearance practice in the years after still runs on 2006, as amended from time to time, not on a 2020 statute-like code.
  • Answer-writers who call ‘EIA 2020’ the law are describing a proposal as if it were notified. That is factually wrong.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  E[EP Act 1986] --> N[EIA Notification 2006 notified]
  D[Draft EIA 2020] --> P[Post-facto thinner hearings]
  D --> X[Not brought into force]
  N --> L[Living clearance law]
  X --> N

Conclusion

EIA 2006 is the notified prior-clearance and public-hearing system. Draft EIA 2020 proposed post-facto regularisation, thinner hearings, more exemptions, and lighter compliance. It remained a draft. Until a new final notification is gazetted, 2006 is the law to name.

Quick related

Students also ask

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2024 · Q8 · GS III · 10 marks

    What role do environmental NGOs and activists play in influencing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) outcomes for major projects in India? Cite four examples with all important details.

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks

Explain intra-generational and inter-generational issues of equity from the perspective of inclusive growth and sustainable development.

Inclusive Growth

Intra-generational equity is fairness among people alive now; it is the core of inclusive growth. Inter-generational equity is fairness toward the unborn; it is the core of sustainable development. Jobless or unequal booms fail the first test even when GDP rises. Aquifer mining, carbon lock-in, and weak environmental clearance fail the second. Policy must raise present capability without running down the ecological and fiscal stock.

Q2 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks

Define potential GDP and explain its determinants. What are the factors that have been inhibiting India from realizing its potential GDP?

Indian Economy

Potential GDP is sustainable full-capacity output, not the latest quarterly print. Determinants are labour, capital stock, TFP, infrastructure, and macro stability. India wastes potential through low female participation, logistics gaps, and factor-market frictions. Bank and corporate stress, weak learning, and informality hold productivity down. Demand shocks open an output gap; scarring can also lower the ceiling itself.

Q3 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks

What are the main constraints in transport and marketing of agricultural produce in India?

Indian Economy

Village roads and a thin cold-chain waste perishable produce before it is sold. Small loads and truck dependence keep agri freight costly. APMC concentration, weak assaying, and poor price information squeeze the seller. Distress harvest sales and thin warehouse-receipt credit force low prices. MSP procurement is not a marketing system for most crops and States.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.