core sector communique

“Victory for environment and the people”: CSE hails today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Nirma case

New Delhi, March 18, 2011: Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has welcomed the latest Supreme Court decision in the Nirma case. The Court has directed today that a new five-member independent committee be formed to review the project, and submit its report within six weeks. In this period, the stay on construction at the project will remain.

Said Sunita Narain, director general, CSE: “The court’s verdict upholds the decision of the MoEF. This is a clear victory for the people and for environment. It will help secure the rights of the water body.”

The Court has also said that it will hear the Nirma case purely on environmental grounds till it is satisfied. It has instructed that the ministry should ensure that its environmental clearance process – which incorporates public hearings and EIAs – actually takes place in accordance with the law.

What went before

Earlier in the year, CSE had brought the case to the attention of the ministry. Taking note of CSE’s objections, the ministry had sent an expert committee to review the project. The committee’s report supported CSE’s contentions and found violation of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 by the project.

Following this, the MoEF had issued a show cause notice to the cement factory being built in Padhiarka village, Bhavnagar district, Gujarat, for “permanent suspension of work and revocation of the environment clearance” (see CSE’s earlier press release at www.cseindia.org). The 1.91-million-tonne-per-annum cement factory, with its coke oven and captive power plants, is being built by the detergent major Nirma over the Samadhiyala reservoir, a large water body. Local farmers and villagers have been resolutely opposing this project.

Nirma had subsequently approached the Gujarat High Court, requesting a stay on the MoEF notice – but the High Court had refused. The company has now withdrawn its petition in the High Court.

The environmental impact assessment report submitted by the company did not reveal that the project was being built on the water body. In fact, the company got environmental clearance saying the site was barren land, points out Narain. In fact, the expert committee report says that Nirma, instead of submitting the actual satellite images of the site which clearly indicate it to be a wetland, submitted “an interpretation diagram based on the satellite imagery”.

The committee does not approve diversion of wetlands. Therefore, it concluded that “matters of import have been withheld, excluded, omitted to be presented or perchance not duly urged by the parties concerned”.