SCOOP: It may be public knowledge that the environment ministry bungled up public consultation for #EIAdraft2020 But when it was questioned about this, the ministry brazenly misled the Karnataka High Court. See highlights in thread, details in the story: bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
Here's the chronology: On 16 July, the Karnataka HC directed the MoEF&CC to ensure “wide publicity” for the #EIAdraft2020 more than two weeks after the Delhi HC directed the ministry to translate the law into India’s 22 local languages. Details here bit.ly/30tHiGj
The translations of the draft notification should be published on the websites of the environment ministries of the Central and state governments as well as the State Pollution Control Boards for wide public consultation, the Delhi HC judgment had said. bit.ly/2YWo4K5
So why did the Karanataka HC also ask the MoEF to ensure 'wide publicity'? It was responding to a petition filed by the United Conservation Movement, a non-profit based in Bengaluru. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD #EIAdraft2020
The petition by the United Conservation Movement sought more time for public consultation and translation of the draft notification into regional languages before it is made into a law. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD #EIAdraft2020
The Karnataka HC said the demands for wider public consultation in regional languages make sense given the wide implications & serious nature of the legal changes proposed. If consultations are not done right, it could stay the notification, the HC warned bit.ly/30tHiGj
On July 22, the environment ministry filed a “statement of objections” which, among other things, claimed that a draft of the EIA notification was already shared with state govts and state-level bodies almost a year ago. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
This was gross misrepresentation. The document it was referring to as #EIAdraft2020 was, in fact, a completely different document. A so-called 'Zero Draft' EIA notification circulated in 2019 with very different legal provisions. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
In its ‘statement of objections’, the environment ministry also asserted why it was not legally obligatory for it to conduct public consultation by translating the #EIAdraft2020 into 22 languages listed in the eight schedule, as directed by the Delhi HC. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
“Further Articles 343 & 346 of the Constitution of India specify only English & Hindi as official medium of communication by the union,” the ministry said in its statement. A lawyer we spoke with found even this part of the document to be misleading. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
He said the ministry was conflating languages mandated for official communication between state and central governments with languages that the state should adopt for consulting with citizens, making them aware of a proposed new law. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
Little surprise, then, that the Karnataka HC did not take kindly to the environment ministry's assertions in the written 'statement of objections'. It has now set August 5 as the date for its order where it will consider if #EIAdraft2020 should be stayed. bit.ly/3jNJ0eD
