My report is not an industry report: T S R Subramanian

Your mandate was to review six key environment laws administered by MoEF&CC. What are the changes that you have suggested in these laws?

What we have proposed is a new umbrella law which makes National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and State Environment Management Authorities (SEMA) statutory bodies, as opposed to the ad-hoc monitoring bodies which presently exist. So, people cannot tamper with them. Earlier, procedures for prosecution of violators were not defined. But now, NEMA and SEMA will have a strong legal cell, headed by a retired district judge, so that they can process cases, conduct proper investigation and prosecution.

The old laws will remain as long as they are not inconsistent with the new law.  The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (of 1981) and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (of 1974) will be merged with the Environment Protection Act (of 1986). In the forest areas, we don't see much contradiction between the Indian Forests Act (IFA) of 1927 and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1980. We are going to let them continue as they are. We don't see a need to amend them. But for all of these laws, the penal procedure will be defined in the new law.

But there are many contradictions between IFA and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 and also conflicts between implementation of FCA and FRA. What do you have to say on this?  

There is not much contradiction associated with Forest Conservation Act. However, FRA has got its own dynamics. We are not responsible for it (review of FRA was not part of HLC's mandate). But what we are saying about it is that FRA says the forest rights should be settled in every village, in every area. In the past six years, the rights have not been settled. We are now saying, please settle them. Whatever the rights are, just settle them. Don't keep the process open and allow it to become a playground for politicians and other vested interests.

The second thing we are saying is that in case of linear projects, such as roads or pipelines which benefit the larger section of communities, one party should not be allowed to hold up the whole thing. So many such projects are pending all over. So, for linear projects only, we are recommending the ‘local consultation' condition should be dropped.


But tribal rights activists and environmentalists say that if you do away with the consent of local people in linear projects, it will affect the spirit of the law. What is your take on it?

People will say that. But our argument is that some higher authority has to see it in totality. Villages in Gujarat could have got the water five years earlier had there been no andolan. Though some people lost their land in Madhya Pradesh (MP), the result is that half of MP and three-quarters of Gujarat today has access to water. So, there is some cost attached to everything. Some larger force will have to look at it. Ultimately, it is all about striking a balance. We are suggesting that the government should not go after development blindly but also not let people of one village blackmail it by shouting “my right, my right”. After all, their right cannot override other people’s right to have benefits.