The proposed EIA amendment by the MoEFCC aims to address delays in environmental clearances.
It suggests establishing new bodies to take over when state-level institutions lapse.
While intended to streamline processes, the amendment raises concerns about bypassing expert scrutiny.
On March 5, 2026, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) published a draft notification proposing amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, the principal regulatory framework governing environmental clearances for development projects in India.
The draft proposes the creation of two new institutional mechanisms: The Standing Authority on Environment Impact Assessment (SAEIA) and the Standing Committee on Environment Impact Appraisal (SCEIA). These bodies are intended to assume the functions of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) and State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC) whenever those state-level institutions become non functional because of the expiry of their tenure or delays in reconstitution.
The ministry noted that such lapses have repeatedly halted environmental clearance processes at the state level and have led to large numbers of pending proposals being transferred to the central government, thereby slowing project decisions.
Although framed as a procedural reform aimed at administrative continuity and addressing delays in appraisal when SEIAA and SEAC bodies lapse, the amendment reflects a deeper institutional shift. When placed alongside the original design of the EIA framework and the evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India, the proposal suggests a gradual transformation in the way environmental decision-making is being structured.
The EIA Notification of 2006 was conceived as an institutional mechanism grounded in scientific expertise and multidisciplinary environmental assessment. Currently, Appendix VI of the notification lays down detailed provisions governing the constitution of appraisal bodies.
Expert Appraisal Committees and State Expert Appraisal Committees are required to consist of professionals with formal academic training and long professional experience in relevant disciplines. Individuals serving on these bodies must possess at least five years of formal university training in fields such as environmental science, engineering, law or management, followed by extensive professional experience. Experts must have a minimum of fifteen years of professional experience, or ten years in the case of individuals holding advanced degrees such as a PhD.
The notification further emphasises disciplinary diversity. Experts must represent fields including environmental quality monitoring, environmental impact assessment methodology, sectoral project management, risk assessment, life sciences covering flora and fauna, forestry and wildlife, environmental economics and public administration related to developmental sectors. Environmental appraisal was therefore structured as a rigorous scientific process involving multiple domains of expertise.
Institutional safeguards reinforced this structure. The membership of an Expert Appraisal Committee was capped at fifteen members, the chairperson was required to be an eminent individual with experience in environmental policy or environmental management, and members were granted fixed tenures with protections against removal without cause or due inquiry. The intent was clear. Environmental clearance decisions were meant to emerge from independent expert evaluation rather than purely administrative discretion.
The 2026 amendment introduces a markedly different institutional logic. Instead of focusing on strengthening the constitution and functioning of expert committees,
the amendment establishes standing authorities whose principal function is to ensure that environmental clearance decisions continue even when those expert bodies lapse.
The draft states that these new bodies may consist of “ex-officio members as deemed appropriate by the Central Government,” a formulation that contrasts sharply with the detailed qualification and expertise requirements prescribed for expert appraisal committees under Appendix VI.
Where the earlier framework prioritised the integrity, disciplinary diversity and continuity of expert institutions, the amendment places greater emphasis on maintaining the uninterrupted movement of project approvals by sidelining the central role of expert appraisal bodies in environmental decision-making.
The amendment also introduces automatic escalation mechanisms that alter the pathway through which environmental clearance proposals move in the regulatory system. If a State Expert Appraisal Committee fails to complete its appraisal within 120 days, the proposal will automatically be transferred through the PARIVESH portal to the proposed Standing Committee on Environment Impact Appraisal. If a State Environment Impact Assessment Authority fails to communicate its decision within the prescribed timeframe, the proposal will move to the Standing Authority on Environment Impact Assessment, which will take a final decision within thirty days.
These provisions ensure that environmental clearance applications do not remain trapped within administrative delays. Yet they also reshape the structure of environmental governance. Institutional lapses that once exposed weaknesses in the constitution or functioning of expert committees will now trigger the transfer of decision-making to an alternate authority. The regulatory system resolves institutional dysfunction not by strengthening expert bodies but by enabling decisions to move around them.
Recent developments at the state level illustrate why this shift carries significance. In March 2026, the Union environment ministry sought an explanation from the Odisha government following allegations that the formation of the state’s SEIAA and SEAC had violated established norms, including guidelines relating to continuity of membership.
Concerns were also raised about potential conflicts of interest involving members affiliated with institutions engaged in environmental consultancy. Such episodes demonstrate that the challenges facing environmental appraisal bodies often arise not merely from procedural delay but from questions about institutional integrity and transparency.
Environmental governance in India has historically evolved through a rich body of jurisprudence that emphasises precaution, ecological protection and inter-generational responsibility. Courts and environmental tribunals have repeatedly invoked foundational principles such as the precautionary principle, the reversal of burden of proof, the public trust doctrine, inter-generational equity and eco-centric approach while adjudicating environmental disputes. These principles have shaped environmental decision-making across institutions in India and have also been recognised globally as guiding norms for environmental regulation.
Any meaningful reference to these foundational principles is difficult to locate within the current amendment. The draft notification frames the reform almost entirely in administrative terms, focusing on timelines, institutional continuity and procedural efficiency.
Environmental clearance is treated primarily as a regulatory process that must continue to function smoothly even when appraisal bodies lapse.
The principles that have historically guided environmental jurisprudence emphasise caution in the face of ecological uncertainty, the protection of natural resources for future generations and the primacy of environmental integrity over narrow developmental interests. When regulatory reform focuses primarily on maintaining administrative flow, the normative foundations of environmental governance risk being displaced by procedural considerations.
Over the past decade, India’s environmental clearance regime has been steadily recalibrated through regulatory adjustments aimed at accelerating approvals and streamlining procedures. The draft EIA Notification released in 2020 attempted a sweeping restructuring of the regulatory framework and drew widespread criticism for provisions perceived to weaken environmental safeguards.
Although that draft has not replaced the 2006 notification, the regulatory system has continued to evolve through successive amendments and procedural changes intended to compress approval timelines.
Seen in this context, the March 2026 amendment reflects a broader shift in how environmental clearance is administered. If delays in appraisal arise because key bodies are not constituted in time or lack adequate capacity, the more durable solution lies in strengthening those institutions rather than creating mechanisms that operate around them.
The immediate priority must therefore be the timely reconstitution and effective functioning of State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities and State Expert Appraisal Committees. Transparent appointments, adequate technical support and clear timelines for reconstitution would address many of the delays that the amendment seeks to resolve.
If an interim mechanism is considered necessary in exceptional situations, its structure must be clearly defined.
A body entrusted with appraisal or clearance functions cannot remain open ended in its composition. Provisions stating that such authorities may comprise “ex officio members as deemed appropriate by the Central Government” leave critical questions unanswered about expertise, independence and accountability. Any such mechanism must therefore be governed by clearly articulated eligibility criteria, disciplinary representation and transparent appointment processes comparable to those applied to expert appraisal committees.
Ensuring that environmental decisions remain grounded in credible institutions and clearly defined expertise is essential if environmental clearance is to continue serving its intended purpose: Evaluating development proposals in a manner that is both scientifically informed and environmentally responsible.