Read Time: 06 minutes

In a plea challenging an alleged decision of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Union (MoEFCC) to abandon the provision for prior Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Clearance required for activities within a regulated coastal area, the Madras High Court has issued notice to Union and State governments.

The governments have been directed to file their replies adhering to the time limit indicated, as the matter was declared to be of high importance. 

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu held that if the principle of prior clearance is diluted and ex post facto clearance is permitted, it would encourage the wanton degradation of the coastal region.

Court also observed that if such ex post facto permission is brought into practice, it would be completely opposed to the purpose of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the ethos of Section 3 thereof.

Finding sufficient basis to the petitioner's assertion that the Ministry’s memorandum seems to abandon the requisition of the prior CRZ clearance certificate, the court said that it did not appear to it that the office memorandum talked of a one-time amnesty scheme or a cut-off date or was limited in its operation.

The PIL filed was challenging an office memorandum of Feb 19, 2021, issued by the ministry. The concerned memorandum details the procedure for dealing with violations arising out of the non-obtaining of a prior CRZ clearance for permissible activities.

The petitioner submitted before the court that as of now under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, activities within a regulated coastal area can only be undertaken after obtaining prior clearance.

The petitioner contended that as it is evident from the memorandum in question that it provides for ex post facto clearance, "if the philosophy of obtaining prior clearance is abandoned there would be wanton degradation."

The petitioners added that even if the parameters are left unaltered, the activities undertaken before permission is obtained, may cause irreversible change and completely destroy the environment.  

This was also argued by the petitioners that in case the ex post facto clearance is granted or refused after a project has started, that part of the project which contravenes norms will be required to be undone or in the worst-case scenario, the entire project will have to be abandoned and the construction that has already been done will have to be demolished - with harm to the environment already being caused.

The petitioners contended that this would cause irreversible damage that would take decades together before the natural scheme of things is restored.

Therefore, directing for counter-affidavits to be filed, the court listed the matter for the next hearing on Oct 21, 2021. 

Case Title: K.Bharathi Vs.The Union Of India and Another.