This document is part of the reference guide to laws, created and published to help unpack the vast and complicated landscape of laws useful for the protection of India’s coasts. Information contained in this document is collated from various sources.  Treat this as a beginner’s reference guide, useful for people on the ground, who are committed to protecting India’s coastal commons. 

This document simplifies and unpacks the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. 

Economic development which forms the basis of all progress today, always comes at a cost. This cost tends to be borne by the passive and vulnerable groups within  society. While talks of sustainable development do their rounds, much has to be changed in the outlook as well as the mechanism of modern progress to make it a default setting. With the expansion of industrialisation, the debate around its environmental impact has also grown. India acknowledged this impact of development only in 1994 through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification issued under Section 3 of its Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986. 

The exercise of evaluating projects from an environmental perspective began in 1976-77 when the Planning Commission asked the Department of Science and Technology to evaluate river valley projects from an environmental lens. Later, this was extended to all projects that were public sector undertakings (CSE, n.d.). However, assessing environmental impacts of projects continued to be largely based on the discretion of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). As these projects were government undertakings, which were also being reviewed by the government agencies, such an assessment was devoid of independent review (Thakur-Jha 2011).

Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994

The EIA notification of 1994 – conjured up in the aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984 – introduced the process of obtaining environmental clearance (EC) for some specific industrial activities. These specific industrial activities which mandatorily required an EC were identified and listed out in Schedule 1 to the notification. This list included nuclear, thermal and river valley projects, harbours and airports, petroleum refineries, chemical fertiliser and pesticide units, asbestos and synthetic rubber making units, mining sites of a certain size and several other activities. There were further qualifications placed on the listed projects which exempted some projects from requiring environmental clearance. For instance, any industrial sector undertakings which were considered as small scale industries and required an investment of less than Rs. 1 crore were exempted from getting an environmental clearance (Paragraph 3(c)) (MoEF 1994). Some projects that were for modernisation/extension but did not exceed a certain pollution load (Paragraph 1, Explanatory note) (MoEF, 1994) and certain industries (if the investment was less than Rs. 50 crores) were exempted from obtaining an environmental clearance (Paragraph 3(c))(MoEF, 1994).

Under this notification, the procedure to be followed for obtaining environmental clearance was also laid out for the first time. Anyone who undertook a project listed in Schedule 1 was required to submit an application for environmental clearance. The application was expected to include an Environment Impact Assessment/ Environmental Management Plan (Paragraph 2(I)(a)) (MoEF, 1994). The applications were then evaluated by an ‘Impact Assessment Agency (IAA)’, which was the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. It was left to the discretion of the IAA to decide if it needed to consult a ‘committee of experts’, which was a committee of up to 15 persons comprising experts in various disciplines such as water pollution, ecosystem management and other such disciplines concerning the environment, one NGO representative and a representative of the IAA (Paragraph 2(III)(a)(b)) (MoEF,1994). The committee of experts had the power to undertake site visits, if needed. 

The EIA Notification 1994 also introduced the process of a public hearing. A public hearing could be called for any project if it involved displacement of a large number of people or if it had severe environmental ramifications (Paragraph 4, Explanatory Note) (MoEF, 1994). The IAA evaluated the project based on the details provided in the application and on any information that was obtained from site visits, if conducted and prepared a set of recommendations to be followed for the project. A summary of the report, the recommendations and other information was also made accessible to the public (Paragraph 2(III)(c))(MoEF, 1994). 

The IAA was expected to work in a time bound manner and the notification placed a limit of  90 days from receipt of the requisite documents and data from the project authorities and completion of the public hearing for completing the assessment. The IAA had 30 days after the assessment to convey whether it had decided to reject the EC or grant the EC (Paragraph 2(III)(c))(MoEF, 1994) .   

After obtaining an environmental clearance, a project developer was bound to submit a half-yearly report to the IAA, and the IAA was to make these compliance reports publicly available (Paragraph 2(IV))(MoEF, 1994). 

While the EIA Notification of 1994 was the first step taken to introduce an environmental clearance procedure for industries, there were a few obvious gaps and crucial issues that hampered the effectiveness of an environmental impact assessment process. Some of the most important ones are:  

i. The requirement of public hearings were not mandatory for a range of activities which included broadening of highways, small-scale industrial projects in notified and earmarked estates, mining projects with less than 25 ha, modernisation of irrigation projects already set up, units within a Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Export Processing Zones (EPZs) and off-shore exploration activities beyond 10 km from ecologically sensitive areas and habituated villages (Paragraph 3) (MoEF 1994).  These exceptions were made in spite of many of these projects causing displacement and severe environmental impacts. As a result, people whose lives and livelihood might be affected by any such exempted projects did not get an opportunity to participate in any way in decisions of project development. Also, the public hearing was a channel for people to get access to clear information regarding the projects that were proposed in their vicinity. Exempting certain projects from the process of public hearing also meant that reliable information regarding the projects did not come easily to the affected public. Also, the exemptions for mining projects less than 25ha created a loophole that was exploited by the mining industry as they began to structure their projects in such a way as to avoid the process of environmental clearance. As the mining industry had wreaked havoc on people’s lives and the environment, EIA notification 1994 failed to sufficiently monitor and mitigate the impacts, particularly in mining belts.  

ii. The EIA legislation proved itself to be a sham with the combined effect of the listed exceptions to it and gross neglect to subject expertise during project approvals. The notification point-blankly stated that the first right of evaluation was to rest with the Ministry, and not with experts from the field. This allowed for developers to view the EIA process as a mere formality and push forward their projects without any nuanced inputs to avoid environmental impact – the very objective for which EIA was introduced.

iii. Half-yearly reports, which were to ensure compliance on the part of developers, were hardly submitted by project developers and consequently were not being made available to the public (Thakur-Jha 2011). As a result, after a clearance was given, it became nearly impossible to track if industries were actually complying with the conditions imposed on them or not.

iv. Parts of EIA which are to deal with the public – be it public hearings or availability of reports in public domain – have been manipulated and neglected very often, as can be seen in the cases that approach courts. 

Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006

The EIA 1994 was replaced by another notification in 2006 that attempted to make some major modifications to the EIA process in India. The key features this notification brought about were:

i. Introduction of a state-level assessment authority: This notification categorised all projects into Category A projects and Category B projects, which were divided based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and the impacts on human health, natural and man-made resources (Paragraph 4)((MoEF, 2006). The projects which were considered to have a relatively higher impact over a larger area were put in Category A. 

Projects in Category A require EC from the Central Government, that is, the MoEF&CC; Category B projects require was to be approved by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) at the state level. Three-member SEIAAs were to constituted by the Central government in consultation with the UT or state governments (Paragraph 4 & 3) (MoEF 2006). 

ii. Introduction of Appraisal Committees : An Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) at the Central level and a State or UT level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in every state/ UT was constituted by the Central Government every 3 years under this Notification. These expert appraisal committees are responsible for examining applications for ECs and providing recommendations to the Central and State Governments to grant or reject ECs (Paragraph 4 & 5) (MoEF, 2006). 

iii. A ‘Prior-EC’ procedure for new projects: This notification also set up an elaborate Prior-EC procedure for certain projects which were being newly established. A prior EC procedure comprised steps of  Screening (Category B projects only), Scoping, Public Consultation and Appraisal (Paragraph 7) (MoEF, 2006). 

• Screening: In this first step,  SEACs looked into the details of the project to decide if it needed further environmental studies and preparation of an EIA report. Those that needed an EIA report were categorised as B1 and those that did not require an EIA report were categorised as B2 projects. B1 projects were required to undergo the steps of scoping, public consultation and appraisal. B2 projects, on the other hand, do not require preparation of an EIA report and the ECs are determined on the basis of the application itself. 
• Scoping: By this step, the scope of an EIA report was determined. The SEAC and the CEAC, after examining the project details, prepare a terms of reference (ToR), addressing all environmental concerns. The ToR then becomes the guiding document based on which project developers are expected to prepare an EIA report. 
• Public consultation: All category B1 project and Category A projects, barring a few exceptions, have to undergo the public consultation process where the concerns of the locally affected persons are taken into account. The process of public consultation has two components: 

(a) a public hearing at or close to the site of the project 

(b)written responses from any persons who might have a stake in the environmental aspects of the project. 

Public consultation process broadened the scope for public participation in the 2006 notification as compared to that provided in the 1994 notification. It became possible for experts in various fields to participate in the environmental clearance process by using the written responses method also. 

• Appraisal: Appraisal refers to the detailed scrutiny that the EAC or the SEAC undertakes of the project. Finally, the SEAC or the EAC arrives at the recommendation for the regulatory authorities (i.e, the MoEF&CC or the SEIAAs) to either grant or reject the application for environmental clearance.  The regulatory authority can decide to disagree with the final recommendations of the EAC/SEAC. In such a case, the regulatory authority can request for a reconsideration by the EAC/SEAC. (Paragraph 8 (i) & (ii)) (MoEF 2006). 

iv. Detailed public hearing process: The process of a public hearing was also detailed out better in the 2006 notification. Some of the key ones are (Paragraph 7 (i) III): 

• Public hearing is to be held on the site concerned and carried out as per the procedure appended with the notification. 
• The responses from other concerned parties are to be noted in writing. 
• Pollution Control Boards of States and Union Territories are incharge of conducting public hearings and this was to be done within 45 days of an application before the MoEF&CC. 

Even though the EIA Notification, 2006 was expected to strengthen the whole process of environmental impact assessment, it failed to substantially achieve its objective for many reasons. The EIA Notification 2006 underwent several amendments in a short span of a few years and these amendments introduced exceptions to the EC process, effectively diluting the EIA process on the whole. In its current form, there are several glaring gaps in the process of environmental impact assessment. A few of the most critical ones have been elaborated :

1. Poor quality of EIA reports: The reports filed by project developers have very often been of very poor quality and unreliable, without properly documenting the environmental impacts (Menon & Kohli, 2015). This has hindered access to information for the public and affected public hearing processes. 
2. Urgently needs a cumulative approach: While the EIA process examines the impacts of projects one at a time, it fails to acknowledge and examine cumulative impacts on the landscape of several projects in close proximity to one another. As a result, the cumulative impacts of several large projects in one stretch of land, particularly in industrial and coastal belts has been ignored. 
3. Limited public participation: There have been several issues with respect to free, fair and transparent public hearings. Instances have been recorded where force and coercion were used to threaten the public in public hearings or inconvenient sites or time slots have been selected for the public hearing. This has greatly hampered public participation in the environmental clearance process (Menon & Kohli, 2015). 
4. Lack of nuanced approaches to varied ecosystems: EIA procedures continue being criticised for the lack of nuanced approaches to the diverse conditions and ecosystem specific impacts. It needs to be borne in mind that the environmental impact of human activities on a plateau are different from that on a coastal ecosystem. Thereby, these activities affect livelihoods of local communities in different ways and aspects. In Spite of this, Terms of Reference (TORs) continue to be largely industry specific general terms, without paying heed to the context or nuances of the site. Without such attention, EIA will continue to be a generalist law despite its highly-specific objective. 
5. EC treated as a formality exercise: The policymakers need to build a sensitive mechanism for the region and project in question – through the EIA process – right at the beginning of project development, rather than getting ECs as the last piece in the puzzle and treating it as merely a formality. It has also been found that developers purchase privately-owned land or seek transfer of previously-acquired land by state governments much before the EIA process begins. State government and project developers are thus in contact and agreement well before clearance is sought. The matter of obtaining finances and land is detached from that of seeking EC under EIA in such cases which are numerous. The EIA process comes in much later in the decision-making process, after much time and effort has been invested and money and promises have been exchanged. ((Menon & Kohli, 2015) Further, ministries like that of mining and environment work in isolation, rather than synchronising their energies and effort. The conflicting questions posed by the environment ministry in the later stages of this entire process are then viewed as delays and deterrents to industrial growth (Menon and Kohli 2015).

Additionally,  just as the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) has been given the power to regulate shrimp farms and their environmental impact, other regulatory bodies  for other industrial activities in specific areas should similarly be assigned the task of  monitoring and mitigating environmental impacts of that industry. 

6. Failure to integrate EC process with other laws: One of the biggest flaws in the existing framework for environment impact assessment under the 2006 notification, has been the failure to integrate the EIA with other frameworks that form a part of environmental governance such as the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or system of local self governance. These laws give rights to local governments to manage environmental resources. Yet, there has been little done to integrate the EIA framework with the current framework of environmental governance in India (James & Udayashankar, 2020). 
7. Failure to monitor once EC has been granted: A highly pertinent matter is also that while EIA rules state that an approval can be revoked in case any of the conditions are not followed by the project proponents, not one such instance has been found. Moreover, the two kinds of clearances i.e. new and expansion projects, do not take into any consideration the prior history of non-compliance on the part of the project developers. This not only raises a question on the monitoring of EIA, but also the very spirit with which it was introduced (Menon and Kohli 2015). 

The EIA framework is expected to ensure a balance between environment protection, human rights and economic development. However, the process in its current form, has several glaring loopholes. The need of the hour is a complete overhaul to ensure adequate protection to the environment and to rights of communities, keeping in mind the fragility of certain ecosystems,  while balancing our developmental needs. A draft notification was released for public comments in2020. However, there was significant public outcry against the notification asking the government to withdraw the draft, which was seen to be completely diluting the objective of environmental protection. The central government reviewed the thousands of comments sent by citizens, but no further action has been taken yet to notify or withdraw the draft notification. The 2006 Notification prevails for the time being even as advocacy and citizen action for a better process for impact assessment and environmental clearance continues.   

Lessons from the Courts

• Regarding the public hearing process and functioning of the EACs:

In the matter of Utkarsh Mandal vs Union of India (WP (C) No. 9340/2009 & CM Appeal Nos. 7127/09, 12496/09), the Delhi HC made pertinent observations regarding the manner in which public hearings were conducted and the way in which decisions regarding ECs  were taken.

A mining operation in South Goa had been granted EC by the MoEF&CC. This decision was placed in appeal before the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA), which also affirmed the decision of the MoEF&CC. The EC had been granted, despite considerable opposition in public hearings. There were also as many as 6 public hearings scheduled by the Goa State Pollution Control Board on the same day and at the same venue. The court noted that this reduced the entire procedure to a mere formality and found the clearance granted to be objectionable. 

The court also looked into the functioning of the EAC. Firstly, it was found that the Chairperson of the EAC (Mines) was also the Director of four mining companies, outside the state of Goa. The court found this appointment of a person with direct interests in mining, as the Chairperson, was unethical and robbed the EAC of its credibility. Secondly, it was brought to the court’s attention that the EAC had granted 410 mining approvals within the first 6 months since the beginning of 2009. The court did not see how a single EAC meeting could approve more than 5 EIA applications and stated that these matters deserved more serious thought. Thirdly, an RTI application stated that the EAC (Mines) visited the site in question four times. However, the court was not clear if the visits were for the projects in question or not. While the court did not direct for public hearings to take place again, it directed the committee to consider each of the objections raised and visit the site within a stipulated time period to arrive at a fresh decision. Moreover, the MoEF was told to examine its granting of “conditional clearances” without furnishing details of the mandatory conditions to be complied with before commencing a project 

• Public hearing process is critical

Considering the civic and elaborate nature of public hearings, they have been fertile areas for disputes. It has thus been of immense importance to ensure their conduct and manner for an efficient EIA process to prevail. The EC to Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. in Chhattisgarh was also set aside by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Delhi (Appeal no. 3/2011 (T) (NEAA no. 26 of 2009) on a similar matter. The project developer had submitted fake No Objection Certificates from Gram Sabhas and made a declaration that a Gram Sabha meeting had been duly conducted, when in fact, a proper meeting had not been conducted.  The NGT took cognizance of the video recording and declared it to be a mockery of norms of  fair procedure. It found major loopholes such as the absence of the Sarpanch or other representatives of the affected villages, not maintaining records of grieving parties, dis-allowing them to speak through microphones, no action being taken by officers in the face of commotion and not informing the public that the hearing would resume post all the disorder. The NGT declared that the mere parading of people supporting the project and failing to produce the summary of this hearing in the local language to the public made it a “classical example of violation of the rules and the principles of natural justice.” Additionally, the NGT noted that the EAC failed to conduct the EIA’s mandatory requirement of a Cumulative Impact Assessment despite deciding on it. Despite this, the MoEF had gone ahead and granted the EC. The NGT found these various points as grounds for setting aside the EC and directed for the fresh public hearing to be conducted under the supervision of an experienced Additional District Magistrate (ADM) with special care (Indian Kanoon 2012). 

There exist numerous such cases as public hearings continuously surface as points of violation in the EIA process. Just like in the cases mentioned here, most of them pertain to issues with site, timings, use of coercion and threat (Menon and Kohli 2015). Continuous changes have been made to this provision of the EIA from 1997 to 2020. However, the continuing cases and nature of its violation simply point out to the ever-present vulnerability of massive sections of our society. 

• Environmental clearance requires subject experts

Noting that environmental jurisprudence is a specialised job requiring officials with technical competence in this field, in the matter of Kalpavriksh Ors vs. Union of India  (Application No. 116(T_HC) of 2013 before the Principal Bench, NGT). The NGT took into consideration the fact that the EAC carried out all the stages in the EIA and that there was growing conflict of interest in the appointment of its members and hence persons with public administration and management experience would not be able to contribute effectively in accordance with law). The NGT directed the MoEF not to appoint experts as members/Chairperson of the EAC/SEAC  unless the experts have expertise  that are directly relatable to the various fields of environmental jurisprudence. 

It has also been brought forward by NGOs and researchers that the EIA reports falter in quality due to biassed assessments, inadequate baselines and lack of independence enjoyed by EIA consultants who are funded by developers and therefore, find their work directly linked to their client’s satisfaction (Menon and Kohli 2015). This is a major lacuna in the policy where despite multiple revisions in it – stressing on and including expert opinion – one still cannot base the findings of EIA reports purely on environmental merits and/or demerits. 

• Need to train the public on the provisions of the EIA so they can provide informed consent

Another noteworthy judgement was that of the Supreme Court upholding the religious rights of traditional tribal communities and other forest dwellers in the face of mining operations in Orissa (WP (C) No. 180 of 2011). It observed that the sacred importance of Niyamgiri hills was not given active consideration and called out the Gram Sabha’s role of safeguarding customary and religious rights of communities under the Forest Rights Act (FRA). The court also found people to be unaware of the rules and procedures of EIA. It therefore directed the state government to prepare enough communication and training material in local languages and for public hearings to be held in common places to improve this. Considering the vastness and illiteracy in India, this was an important order towards making EIA operate successfully. Another important aspect this case raised was the ownership of mineral deposits and mines found within the borders of a state. Since, FRA did not vest such ownership rights to the tribal communities and Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) mentions minor minerals, the court found the state’s claim to the minerals and the power for it to reserve it for a Public Sector Undertaking, valid (Indian Kanoon 2013).

Experts have pointed out to the new geographies governed by special constitutional provisions

contained in the Fifth (Article 244 (1)) and Sixth Schedules (Articles 244 (2) and 275 (1)) of the Indian constitution. The provisions in these sections call for special administration of these areas through their autonomous district or tribal councils. A lot of the developmental projects like that of hydropower and mining are making their way to these regions. However, the insensitivity of EIA reports reduces the complexity of these areas which ends up promoting these projects in the name of growth and inclusivity. In addition to being unable to calculate compensation for their commonly held resources, these communities also face prejudice and apathy. A good example of this is found in the area of Kutch, where a coastal community and its fishing commons do not find mention in the same EIA report where their counterpart land-based livelihoods do (Menon and Kohli 2015). In the face of such insensitivities and violations, it becomes even more necessary for communities to be aware of their rights and legal processes. 

Conclusion

The TSR Subramanian Committee set up in 2014 to review environmental laws made  some technical suggestions which might have had a positive impact on laws, but for the most part it only contributed to greater setbacks to the EIA law, as the sections above show. Some of these technical suggestions included the availability of sector-specific Terms of Reference (ToR) to carry out EIAs, a comprehensive database for EIA consultants to base their findings on, as well as independence of new institutions at state and central levels. Non-compliance still thrives on the back of political influence, corruption, social exclusion and monitoring capacity. financial penalties along with the use of technology in monitoring is recommended to tackle this. Fast-tracking clearances of linear projects and removing the requirement of public hearings in cases where there’s no habitation are also procedural fixes suggested by the committee (Menon and Kohli 2015). 

The attempt at delegating EC duties has been clear through the subsequent EIA notifications. While this is a significant step to give contextual and specific attention to each project and the local conditions around it, it is equally vital to ensure that the procedures laid down are not being diluted with such decentralisation of power. With these procedures coming to the rescue of the most vulnerable and backward sections of society, it’s imperative that civil society organisations remain on their toes to keep developers and builders in line. The notifications and case laws also depict efforts by the legislative and judiciary to push for more technical expertise in matters of EIA and EMP. However, this should be strengthened by allowing for such bodies to be independent and simultaneously keeping their credibility in check. In order to truly strengthen the process of EIA – in addition to penalising violations – courts also need to observe the aspects and ways in which these violations take place. Fortifying and monitoring precisely those provisions of EIA that are circumvented or leapt over would highlight the true threats to developer interests and regulate them accordingly. Further, in addition to following the law for the sake of  environmental preservation and impact mitigation properties, it is also imperative that the vulnerable sections of society are not being exploited at the hands of project proponents. This is only possible when the procedures of EIA are observed in spirit rather than being treated like a formality. The essence of EIA lies precisely in the manner in which its procedures are carried out. 

References:

Centre for Science and Environment. n.d. Understanding EIA. Retrieved from https://www.cseindia.org/understanding-eia-383

Menon, Manju and Kanchi Kohli (2015). Environmental Regulation in India: Moving ‘Forward’ in the Old Direction. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol L No. 50

James, Stella and Udayashankar, Nayana (2020). From 2006 to 2020: The Ongoing Problems of the EIA. Socio-Legal Review, National Law School of India University, Bangalore. https://www.sociolegalreview.com/post/from-2006-to-2020-the-ongoing-problems-of-the-eia

Thakur-Jha, Urmila (2011). Environment Impact Assessment Follow-up in India: Exploring Regional Variation. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 13, No. 3 pp. 435–458, Imperial College Press. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Urmila-Jha-Thakur/publication/227652699_Environmental_impact_assessment_follow-up_in_india_Exploring_regional_variation/links/53e8bd100cf25d674ea85965/Environmental-impact-assessment-follow-up-in-india-Exploring-regional-variation.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Acts, Rules and Guidelines Referred: 

Ministry of Environment and Forests (1994). Environment Impact Assessment Notification. Gazette of India,  27th January 1994. 

Ministry of Environment and Forests (2006).  Environment Impact Assessment Notification.   Gazette of India, 14th September 2006. 

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (2020). Environment Impact Assessment (Draft) Notification. Gazette of India, March 2020. 

Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department (1986). The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/eprotect_act_1986.pdf

Cases Referred: 

Kalpavriksha & Ors vs Union of India & Ors., Application No. 116(THC)/ 2013 before the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal. Order dated 17th July, 2007. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159250328/

Adivasi Kisan Mazdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan vs MoEF & Others, Appeal No. 3/2011 before the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal. Order dated 20th April, 2012. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19333350/

Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs MoEF, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180/2011 before the Supreme Court of India. Order dated 18th April, 2013. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109648742/

Utkarsh Mandal vs Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9340 of 2009 & CM APPL Nos. 7127 of 2009, 12496 of 2009 before the High Court of Delhi. Order dated 26 November, 2009. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188721650/

———–

The views expressed in this paper are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their organisations.