The ancient Romans had a widely-used adage: Ovem lupo committere. Translated into English, the Latin expression would mean: to set a wolf to guard the sheep. The construct has had many variations and mutations over time and across geographies, but the essence remains the same.
This thought would cross one’s mind many times over while going through the report of the High-Level Committee (HLC) that was constituted to review Acts administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The four-member panel headed by former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, which submitted its report in November last year, had had its detractors from day one.
No, these were not doubting Thomases with nothing better to do in life, but well-meaning and well-informed environmental defenders who were aghast and shocked at the way the Subramanian committee went about transacting its business. The panel was abrasive in approach, opaque in compliance, and undemocratic in disposition. None of its members, though well-qualified in their respective fields, were experts in environments, forests or wildlife.
Given the backdrop of the poll plank of so-called “development” on which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had ridden to victory, it would not have been difficult to guess what this Subramanian panel was actually decreed to do. On paper, it was supposed to review key environment laws — Environment Protection Act (EPA) of 1986, Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1980, Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) of 1972, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981. Later, the Indian Forest Act (IFA) of 1927 was also added to the list.
The committee, asked to submit its report within two months and then granted an extension of a month, produced a document that quoted from the Upanishads and tried to show that it had a percipient understanding of the subject at hand. It called for the enactment of a new Environment Law Management Act (ELMA) and constitution of full-time expert bodies — National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and State Environment Management Authority (SEMA).
All these had a singular objective: streamline the process of environment clearances for “development” projects. The eventual recommendations made clear what the ministry had essentially meant while charting the course for the panel by asking it to review the six laws — that constitute the backbone of environmental governance in India — so as to “bring them in line with current requirements” and “objectives”. Within three months it had become apparent what the ministry had meant by bringing the laws “in line” — in line with demands of industry of course; environment be damned.
The 113-page report charted out the country’s roadmap to environmental disaster. Replete with phrases like “fast track clearances”, “single window clearance” and “making business easier”, the committee’s delineations made it clear that the ministry was hell-bent on undoing the legislative history of India’s environmental governance. It was, therefore, never a question of updating the laws with regard to their stated objectives. It was quite the opposite — the panel was meant to dilute environmental safeguards.
The apprehension among those who care and fight for the environment was palpable: that the ministry was all set to open the floodgates to a deluge of environmentally ravaging projects. But some eight months down the line, despite still acting as a clearing house for industry, the ministry has not been able to act on the Subramanian panel’s report. One of the reasons for this was that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests meanwhile decided to look into the misgivings about the report that had received some coverage in the media. The committee presented its report to Parliament last week, and it has outlined everything that was wrong with the HLC — right from its constitution to its brazen recommendations. In fact, it is quite damning.
The Standing Committee has recommended that the MoEFCC, instead of proceeding with the implementation of the recommendations contained in the HLC report, “should give due consideration to the views/opinion and objections raised by stakeholders including environmental experts. Some of the essential recommendations of the HLC have been doubted and would result in an unacceptable dilution of the existing legal and policy architecture established to protect our environment.”
The next bit is incriminating and virtually summarises the issue at hand. The committee said, “An impression should not be created that a Committee whose constitution and jurisdiction are itself in doubt, has been used to tinker with the established law and policy. Should the government wish to consider specific areas of environmental policy afresh, it may consider appointing another Committee by following established procedures and comprising acclaimed experts in the field who should be given enough time to enter into comprehensive consultations with all stakeholders so that the recommendations are creditworthy and well considered which is not the case with the recommendations of High Level Committee under review.” In short, it was a succinct rundown of all the allegations that had been heaped against the Subramanian committee and its recommendations.
Congress MP Ashwani Kumar, who headed the 31-member committee, subsequently described the situation as an “environmental volcano waiting to erupt anytime”. Kumar, in his infinite wisdom, forgot that it was his own party that had set the process rolling when its last representative in the ministry, Veerappa Moily, had gone about granting environmental clearances to industry with nary a concern for the environment that he was constitutionally mandated to protect. Nevertheless, the Standing Committee had done a good job: it was matter-of-fact and politically agnostic.
In Indian democracy, parliamentary committees are meant to transact business on behalf of Parliament since the latter would not always have the time to take up important legislative matters. The Parliament of India website describes the system as “a path-breaking endeavour of the Parliamentary surveillance over administration.” They are meant to “to provide necessary direction, guidance and inputs for broad policy formulations and in achievement of the long-term national perspective by the Executive.” In other words, reports of Standing Committees have both a constitutional and ethical value, and they form the final checks-and-balances frontier that a democracy needs. It would be a travesty of the Parliamentary process if the Narendra Modi government cocks a snook at the Standing Committee’s report.
