Chennai: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin on Friday wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi objecting to exemption from public consultation for atomic mining projects.
He cited an Office Memorandum issued by the Impact Assessment Division of the Ministry of Environment, whereby all mining projects of atomic minerals notified in Part B and critical and strategic minerals notified in Part D of the First Schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act have been exempted from the requirement of public consultation. The memorandum directed that all such projects shall be appraised at the Central level, irrespective of the lease area involved.
Pointing out the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu are endowed with deposits of Rare Earth Elements embedded in beach sand systems, Stalin said these coasts are ecologically fragile and highly vulnerable. “The sandy beaches of the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay are home to endangered turtle nesting grounds, coral reefs, mangroves, and sand- dunes that serve as natural barriers against erosion and cyclonic events. These ecosystems sustain biodiversity, stabilise shorelines, sequester carbon, and safeguard coastal communities. Mining in such regions is therefore inherently eco-sensitive and demands rigorous scrutiny with the fullest involvement of local communities,” he argued.
It may be recalled the EIA Notification of 1994, as amended in 1997, introduced mandatory public hearings, a landmark step that has since become integral to participatory environmental governance. This safeguard was reinforced in the EIA Notification, 2006.
“Exempting projects from public consultation would deprive local communities of their right to raise legitimate concerns relating to livelihood loss, displacement, and environmental impacts, and would weaken the principles of participatory democracy,” the Chief Minister said.
Besides, he said, the Office Memorandum (OM), also raises serious legal concerns. The National Green Tribunal has in the past struck down Office Memorandums which sought to dilute statutory safeguards. Further, the Supreme Court, in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati & Ors. (2020), has held that substantive amendments to the EIA framework cannot be brought about by way of executive instructions such as OMs, and that such instruments cannot override statutory notifications.
“The present OM, by dispensing with public consultations, amounts to an impermissible executive amendment of law and is therefore unsustainable. Policy changes of such significance must be deliberated transparently in Parliament and State Legislatures, with due consultation of the States and the public. Proceeding otherwise would run counter to the spirit of cooperative federalism and to the democratic ethos of our country,” he said.
Therefore, he urged the Union Government to withdraw the OM dated September 8.
