Subscribe
On July 13, 2026, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notified two orders that together restructure how a large share of India’s industrial and infrastructure projects will be cleared. The first, S.O. 3862(E), amends the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, to constitute two new bodies, a Standing Authority on Environment Impact Assessment (SAEIA) and a Standing Committee on Environment Impact Appraisal (SCEIA), for each state and Union Territory (UT). The second, S.O. 3863(E), sets out their composition. A draft version of these amendments was published on March 5, 2026, for public comment, leaving the composition of SAEIA and SCEIA undefined beyond a reference to “ex-officio Members as deemed appropriate.” The final notification defines that composition, and it is this composition, rather than the fact of the amendment itself, that raises the more substantial question.
Under the EIA Notification, 2006, certain categories of projects, from mining and thermal power to large construction, cannot begin construction or operation without prior environmental clearance (EC). Projects are divided into Category ‘A’, appraised by an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) at the Centre, and Category ‘B’, appraised at the state level. For Category ‘B’ projects, the appraisal is carried out by a State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), and the clearance itself is granted or denied by a State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) based on that appraisal. SEIAA and SEAC are thus the two bodies that, between them, decide whether the large majority of state-level industrial and infrastructure projects can proceed.
The stated reason for the change is delay. The preamble to S.O. 3862(E) records that SEIAA and SEAC have a three-year tenure, extendable by one year, and that reconstitution is ordinarily to begin six months before expiry. It further records that, in practice, proposals from states are delayed or incomplete, that this leads to the bodies becoming non-functional, and that pending proposals are then transferred in bulk to the Central level, extending timelines. SAEIA and SCEIA are introduced as standing bodies to discharge the functions of a non-functional SEIAA or SEAC for a period not exceeding six months in the first instance, subject to one further extension of up to six months.
The composition of these standing bodies departs from the eligibility criteria that Appendix VI of the EIA Notification, 2006, prescribes for EAC and SEAC. Appendix VI requires five years of formal education toward a relevant postgraduate or professional degree, or two years of civil service training, followed by at least 15 years of subsequent experience, or 10 years with a doctoral degree, in one of seven specified fields, including environmental quality, environmental impact assessment methodology, risk assessment, and environmental economics. The Chairperson is additionally required to be an eminent person with experience in environmental policy or management. The final amendment retains this standard for EAC and SEAC and extends their tenure from three to four years.
SCEIA, as constituted under S.O. 3863(E), does not draw its members through this standard. Of its six members, five hold their seats by virtue of the office they occupy, the Chief Wildlife Warden, the Director General or Director of Health Services of the state, the Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee, and two administrative secretaries in the environment department. None of these posts is subject to an eligibility criterion under Appendix VI. The sixth member, described as the domain expert, is nominated by the Director or Principal of the Indian Institute of Technology or National Institute of Technology located in the state or UT, or, in their absence, by the Director of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute. The provision does not require this nominee to meet the 15-year or doctoral standard set out in Appendix VI; it requires only that the nomination originate from the head of one of these institutes. SAEIA, at the level above, follows the same pattern with three ex-officio members, the Chief Secretary or equivalent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, and a departmental officer.
A related change concerns paragraph 4(iii) of the original 2006 notification, which provided that in the absence of a duly constituted SEIAA or SEAC, a Category ‘B’ project would be considered at the central level. Since appraisal at the central level is conducted by the EAC, this meant that the project would still be assessed by a body meeting the Appendix VI standard. The final amendment omits this provision. In its place, a non-functional SEIAA or SEAC is now succeeded by SAEIA or SCEIA respectively, under the six-month arrangement described above. A project that would previously have defaulted to appraisal by a qualified expert body will now be appraised by a body whose composition is, with one partial exception, defined by office rather than by qualification.
The qualification standard in Appendix VI is not incidental to the appraisal process; it is what the process is built around. Environmental clearance under the 2006 notification turns on technical questions, whether a project’s likely impact on air, water, soil, or wildlife has been correctly assessed, and whether the mitigation measures proposed in the EIA report are adequate. The seven fields Appendix VI lists as grounds for eligibility, environmental quality, EIA methodology, risk assessment, forestry and wildlife, environmental economics, among others, map directly onto these questions. A member appointed only by virtue of the office held is not tested against any of them before being asked to decide on them. This is the standard SCEIA and SAEIA are built without.
The ministry’s stated rationale for the amendment is delay: state governments reconstitute SEIAA and SEAC late, appraisal halts, and pending proposals accumulate at the Centre. SAEIA and SCEIA are framed as the fix for that gap. Whether this arrangement resolves the delay it was designed for is a separate question from whether it preserves the scrutiny Appendix VI was written to guarantee. The notification does not attempt to reconcile the two.