Category: Litigation

Categories
Litigation

While drafting opinions and notices, be circumspect and remember the context of a potential litigation

JSaiDeepak_OnTrialSince Orders VI, VII, and VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide a framework for the drafting of pleadings (which I wrote about previously), it is relatively easier for a litigator to understand the requirements. There is however, no similar codified framework for legal opinions for clients and legal notices and as a result, a litigator naturally falls back on the practice of the chamber or firm that he is working with or for. Drafting legal opinions and notices however, presents a litigator with a wonderful opportunity to showcase and develop acumen, foresight, and a sense of discretion. Needless to say, the ingredients of an opinion and a notice differ and so does the approach.

Understand the situation and the client before you draft an opinion

Generally speaking, a legal opinion addresses a specific query from a client. It presents the client with the options available along with their pros and cons. Since the client must be made aware of the position of the law, the outcome of legal research forms an indispensable component of an opinion but there are sensitive aspects that go beyond an exposition of the law. While one kind of opinion presents a bouquet of options to the client and stops short of recommending the way forward, the other type also strongly recommends a specific option that (in the litigator’s opinion) is the most viable and advisable. To be clear, the ultimate decision is the client’s. The difference only lies in the degree to which the litigator leans on the client and pushes an option. In my opinion, it would help to not subscribe rigidly to either school of thought because the approach must depend on (a) the situation, (b) the client’s awareness of the legal and commercial consequences, and (c) his appetite for taking risk.

For instance, if the client is not a legally savvy individual whose personal liberty is at stake in a criminal case, it is for the litigator to help the client make the choice by uncluttering the options before him. In contrast, if the matter is a civil commercial dispute and the client is a seasoned litigant who merely wants options from which he can choose, the litigator may do just that. This rudimentary illustration is not meant to convey the impression that the stakes in a civil commercial dispute are never as high as those in a criminal matter. Regardless of the situation however, in rendering a written opinion, at all points of time the litigator must be aware that his credibility and credentials are on the line each time.

You are not an oracle

AdvocateInspectingPaperYoung litigators should remember what is at stake because in their eagerness to prove themselves to their seniors and clients, they sometimes stick their necks out to such an extent that they unwittingly offer their heads on a platter to people looking for a convenient scapegoat when things don’t pan out as anticipated. Since reputation is paramount in the legal profession, the litigator must ensure that the client knows that given the several variables involved, no amount of comprehensive legal research and preparation can predict litigation outcomes with certainty. A litigator is not an oracle. Importantly, on issues where there is not enough judicial guidance, no matter how confident the litigator may be in his interpretation of the law or assessment of the situation, it is best to observe a fair degree of caution in the opinion because judicial outcomes can be bizarre no matter how clear the language of the law may be or how open-and-shut a case may seem.

Prepare before you issue notice

A legal notice is the precursor to potential litigation and therefore, a litigator should pay attention to both the content and the language. To borrow from the words of Fali Nariman, notices, like suits for defamation, are often issued in haste and regretted at leisure. Since there is no one statute for legal notices, each notice is implicitly governed by the legislation which applies to a certain act or a transaction to which the notice pertains to. For instance, if the subject-matter of the notice is an alleged contractual violation, the Contract Act and the terms of the contract have an obvious bearing on the ingredients of the notice. Similarly, if the notice alleges an infringement of trademark rights or copyright, the respective legislations and causal facts dictate the elements of the notice.

Before issuing a notice, the litigator should be satisfied that the facts placed before him by the client are reliable and give rise to at least an arguable cause of action because some legislations provide remedies to the recipient of the notice (“noticee”) for groundless threats or allegations. That being said, it would help to keep the language of the notice slightly open-ended because at the time of issuing the notice, one may not always be in possession of complete facts, and the object of the notice may be to test waters and elicit potential defenses from the noticee who is a prospective defendant or even a plaintiff. If the object of the notice is to forewarn the noticee of the existence of a right and thereby lay the foundation for the wilful violation of rights or contractual terms, as the case may be, the language of the notice and the contents of the allegation must clearly identify the scope of the right or the import of the contractual term, although this could result in limiting the scope of pleadings in litigation by estoppel. This clearly calls for a fair bit of due diligence before the notice is issued.

Limit your notice to its role in a potential litigation

Sometimes, in cases involving reputation, the tendency is to resort to puffery or to exaggerate. This is typical of trademark litigation where the trademark owner claims that his products are sold across the length and breadth of the country. In doing so, he inadvertently allows the noticee to initiate legal proceedings at a place of his choosing because the law legitimately permits him to do so. In one such case, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that by claiming in a legal notice that its products were sold across the length and breadth of the country, the defendant had given the plaintiff a legitimate reason to institute a suit in Delhi. Since the law is that the veracity of such a claim by the defendant can only be tested at trial, the Delhi High Court held that the plaint could not be returned under Order VII, Rule 10 for want of territorial jurisdiction. Such examples abound partly because the client may at times insist on capturing his anger, outrage, or position in harsher or more pompous language than necessary in a legal notice. But it is for the litigator to explain to the client that a legal notice forms an integral part of litigation and therefore, it is advisable to keep the language clinical and objective. Emotion too must be used only to the extent that it serves to further the legal merits of the case. Again, this is an exercise in client-counselling, which forms a large part of the litigator’s job.

In the next post, I will proceed to discuss the use of interim reliefs available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980.

J.Sai Deepak, an engineer-turned-litigator, is an Associate Partner in the Litigation Team of NCR-based Saikrishna & Associates. Sai is @jsaideepak on Twitter and is the founder of the blawg “The Demanding Mistress” where he writes on economic laws, litigation and policy. All opinions expressed here are academic and personal.

Categories
Litigation

Drafting need not be a chore if you reflect on what you want to tell the court

JSaiDeepak_OnTrialWith a series of posts that will appear here under the header “On Trial”, I want to give lawyers who are about to embark on their professional journey, a flavour of what I have learnt in six years as a trial and appellate litigator. I believe that although law schools equip students with some basic skills, by and large they do not prepare them for the rigours and demands of a law practice. I hope that my posts here will help them scale the learning curve faster and with fewer mistakes.

Another recent trend that I noticed was that students are keen to take “activist” positions without doing their research on the law as it exists. There is nothing wrong in taking positions or having opinions on matters of policy but lawyers need to first have clarity on what the law is before commenting on what the law ought to be. That apart, no matter how good one is at substantive law, it is important to know how to present and prove a case in a court of law. Command over procedure is equally important and procedure is best learnt through application and practice.

Introspect when you make errors

StressedLitigatorOnce you join the profession, you will realise that most experienced lawyers do not have the time to sit you down and explain how things work. You learn on the job and naturally, are bound to commit a lot of mistakes. The experience can be soul-shattering and may shake your confidence in yourself. What has helped me in these moments is the realisation that a lawyer must not only be a doer, but must also be a conscious observer of his actions. In other words, every time you goof up, your first instinct must be to look inward and be brutally honest, instead of passing the buck or making anyone else the scapegoat. This realisation led me to create my own “Mistakes Log” which has captured nearly every mistake I have committed in the last six years. I have preffered to assess the quality of my journey using the number and quality of my mistakes because success is the product of several factors, many of which are external and are beyond one’s power.

In these posts, I will draw on my experiences (both personal and vicarious) and share a few practical inputs. I will not, unless absolutely necessary, use much legalese or cite precedent because, thanks to the tools and databases available to most lawyers and even non-lawyers these days, it is not really difficult to read up on the case law on any issue, procedural or substantive. That said, it is important to bear in mind that individual journeys vary and consequently, the lessons drawn as well. Therefore, caveat lector applies to what I have to say.

I will write about aspects of both civil and criminal litigation. Under civil litigation, I will discuss pleadings, interim reliefs, discovery, the trial, oral arguments, and finally, appellate reliefs. Let us look at the general approach to drafting and pleadings first.

Orders VI to VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deal with pleadings. A pleading is defined in Order VI, Rule 1 to mean a plaint or a written statement. Orders VII (read with Section 26) and VIII deal with the requirements of a plaint and written statement respectively and the rules that govern pleadings generally are laid down in Order VI. Adherence to these rules, it is important to understand, is mandated only to the extent that the ends of justice are advanced. Departures from them are not uncommon in practice, nor are they frowned upon by courts unless they are egregious or fatal. This is not to trivialise or discourage adherence to these rules, it is merely an observation about the state of affairs.

In practice, when it comes to pleadings, the tendency is to play safe. This manifests in several ways – right from faithfully adopting boilerplates to making repetitive submissions for the fear of being accused of not denying an allegation or a claim or an assertion by the other side, so much so that even evidence affidavits turn out to be slavish reproductions of pleadings.

Drafting need not be a chore

Although there is a sense of safety in treading the conventional path and in reiterating, errors tend to creep in when templates are adopted without discrimination and that could cause embarrassment when they are scrutinised by the opposing side during trial. Also, from the litigator’s point of view, drafting becomes a chore as opposed to the active learning and simulation exercise it is supposed to be, which certainly does not bode well for the quality of the final product. So how does one go about drafting pleadings?

For starters, it would help to bear in mind that drafting is different from writing. Although good writing skills contribute to good drafting, being adept at English or at writing do not necessarily translate to good drafting. In fact, sometimes there is even a mismatch between the flair that people exude for spoken English and the quality of their writing, and even the converse holds good. Therefore, although a fair command over language and lucidity in writing are essential, what separates writing from drafting, is the realisation that:

(a) it has a real and serious bearing on the fortunes of a litigant.

(b) it caters to an audience that is trained in the law,

(c) it has to present the litigant’s case in the best possible manner while conforming to the requirements of the law, and finally

(d)it will be subjected to withering adversarial dissection by the opposing party (a draft looks great only until the opposing party steps into the picture).

Bearing all of this in mind helps lend sharpness to a draft. That said, given the critical role of pleadings, it is natural to be bogged down by the tedium and gravity of the process. So, given that in the initial years of practice, a litigator is primarily expected to be a researcher and a drafter, how does one quickly churn out sharp drafts and yet make it an engaging exercise?

Although it may not always be desirable or possible, crisp and concise pleadings make life easier for the litigator and the court, more so for the latter since it does not have the time or patience for rambling pleadings. In fact, the volume of pleadings invariably weans a court away from hearing a matter even if the dispute is otherwise fairly straightforward. That said, a litigator’s primary challenge in keeping pleadings to the point is to convince the client that volume of pleadings is not directly proportional to the strength of the case and certainly does not guarantee a successful outcome. This is where the litigator has to fall back on her or his client counselling skills to set reasonable expectations to the client. While it is true that not every client may be convinced, the effort is worth it.

Reflect on what you want to present to the court

The key to clear-cut pleadings is to spend time thinking about what one wishes to present to the court before starting to draft. This means that the broader and the narrower points must be broadly identified and supported with factual and legal research. Subsequently, the litigator must decide the sequence in which the points must be captured so that the court can quickly grasp the nub of the matter without having to wade through several pages. This sequence must not be treated as final because during the course of drafting, an alternate sequence of arguments may seem more logical, or appeal from a strategic perspective. Although this approach may seem time-consuming at first, the advantages of spending time on the matter before drafting will become apparent with time as one becomes more adept at identifying issues and developing a feel for the forum. After all, in our profession, hard work is not measured by the number of hours spent in thoughtless labour or the number of pages drafted. The effort lies in rumination.

J.Sai Deepak, an engineer-turned-litigator, is an Associate Partner in the Litigation Team of NCR-based Saikrishna & Associates. Sai is @jsaideepak on Twitter and is the founder of the blawg “The Demanding Mistress” where he writes on economic laws, litigation and policy. All opinions expressed here are academic and personal.

Categories
Litigation Specialised

A railway line through a forest belt – environmental impact assessments and forest rights

CommunitiesAndLegalAction_KanchiKohliSarita tai was worried about the construction of a railway line between the iron ore mine and the railhead located 30 kilometres from the village she worked at. At least 15 kilometres of this railway line would cut through an important part of the central forest belt. She called me with many questions: What was the process for taking permissions for using forestland for railway lines? Had this process been completed? What was the role of the gram sabha? What if the forest rights of people had not been fully recognised yet?

Some of these answers came easy but the others required the study of some recent circulars and directions of the environment ministry, the tribal affairs ministry, and the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”).

EIAs for railway lines

Surprising as it may seem, the railway line and its related infrastructure are not in the list of projects that need to go through the procedure laid out in the EIA Notification, 2006 issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. We have long tried to find the logic behind it, but without success. Railway projects simply do not require an environment impact assessment and a public consultation for an environmental clearance.

If the railway line is separated from the other components of the project like it was in the case of the mine that Sarita tai was worried about, it could easily avoid the environment impact assessment process. The mine had been up and running for the last year and the proposal for the railway line was only mooted much after the environment clearance was procured for the mine.

Forest diversion and the felling of trees

All non-forest use requires the user agency to seek prior approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. There is a detailed procedure under Section 2, which remains away from public eye and only within negotiations between forest department officials; the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”); and the user agency.

Until recently, no activity related to a project could be carried out for any non-forest use until the entire procedure, which includes a two-stage approval by the MoEFCC and an order by the government of the state where the forest is located, was completed. Felling trees would be illegal without it.

But during the last year, the MoEFCC has allowed the felling of trees to be carried out after a project receives “Stage 1 approval”, that is, the approval of the MoEFCC. This approval often contains conditions including additional studies related to hydrology, impact on wildlife, identification of compensatory afforestation land and others that have a bearing on whether the forest diversion should be approved or not. But in the case of linear projects such as railways, highways or transmission lines, the MoEFCC has attempted to be create a “simplified procedure.”

In a set of guidelines issued on May 7, 2015 and subsequently updated on August 28, 2015, the ministry said that to allow for the speedy execution of these projects, the in-principle approval will be enough to allow for both tree cutting and commencement of work if all “compensatory levies” and a wildlife conservation plan are ready.

Sarita tai was livid. The last time she had seen an in-principle approval, it listed 27 important conditions including that of redoing some important assessments. What is the point going through the remaining procedure for this project if the work can commence and trees can be cut, she asked. It defeats the entire purpose of any safeguards or conditions levied.

train_jungleI agreed and told her that these guidelines had been challenged before the NGT. In January 2015, the NGT first restrained the felling of trees after Stage 1 approval, but subsequently reviewed the order in the light of an affidavit submitted by the MoEFCC. In its direction, the NGT concluded that the while tree felling and commencement of work might be allowed for linear projects it would be treated as an order under Section 2 of the FCA and therefore can be challenged before the NGT. This is important to understand because the NGT had previously ordered that only those orders issued finally by state governments activating forest diversions could be brought before it. Till then no commencement of work or tree felling could be allowed.

The MoEF’s May 7 and August 28, 2015 guidelines lay down that while the “simplified” procedure for the speedy execution of linear projects remains in place an “aggrieved person” now has the option to approach the NGT with an appeal against this order.

Forest rights and linear projects

I knew that Sarita tai would also ask about the recognition of the rights of forest dwelling communities who have historically either lived or used the forest that is sought to be diverted. The Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 mandates the recognition of individual and community forest rights of tribal and other forest dwelling communities.

On August 3, 2009, the MoEFCC issued an important circular, which, among other things, clarified that no diversion of forest land for non-forest use would take effect unless the process of recognition of rights had been completed. It also said that the consent of the gram sabhas would be required before the diversion process can be given effect. This has also been re-iterated and confirmed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (“MoTA”), which oversees the implementation of the FRA.

In the villages that Savita tai was working in, several of the community forest rights claims were still pending final approval and the grant of individual rights had been contentious as people had only received rights over a part of the forest land that had been claimed. In their view, their rights over the forests were yet to be recognised. So the first question that came to our mind was whether the forest diversion and tree cutting could have come into affect if the recognition of rights was pending. The gram sabha (village assembly) had confirmed that their consent had not been sought.

This issue had been a bone of contention between the MoTA and the MoEFCC since 2013. While the MoEFCC had claimed through their February 5, 2013 circular that the requirement of the gram sabha consent could be dispensed for linear projects, the MoTA, the nodal ministry, said that the MoEFCC had no authority to make such an interpretation. All projects, linear or non-linear, had to be treated equally regarding forest diversions and consent provisions.

These different interpretations continue to operate and the MoEFCC has been approving proposals for forest diversion and allowing for tree felling for linear projects, interpreting that a gram sabha nod was not required, especially in cases where there has been an assurance from the state government that either the rights under FRA have been recognised or are in the process of being so.

A worrying scenario

Thus, with no requirement of EIAs once a railway line is segregated from other aspects of a project; tree felling permitted after in-principle approvals; and tentative interpretations for gram sabha consent; the situation did not seem very encouraging to Sarita tai and the affected people that she was working with. They could however, still petition the concerned ministries. No doubt, the fate of the project and the forest dependent people could still lie in bureaucratic interpretations and the application of mind by expert committees.

With no court action on the anvil immediately and the affected communities clearly aligned to question both the FCA guidelines and the dilution of the consent provisions; its anyone’s guess whether the railway line will be built or not. But it once again raises questions about why any project, which has a far-reaching impact on forests, wildlife, and people, should be granted exemptions from basic environmental scrutiny and  stringent safeguards. Meanwhile, people like Sarita tai have to grapple with many interpretations of the law on a case-by-case basis.

Kanchi Kohli is a researcher working on law, environment justice, and community empowerment.

Categories
Litigation Specialised

How we used the law to reclaim the inter-tidal area at Bavdi Bander

VimalKalavadiya_CPRNamatiThe Kutch district in Gujarat, one of the largest in India, has a coastline of 405 kilometers and inter-tidal area of about 200 kilometers. For generations, communities in the district have engaged in agriculture, pottery, animal husbandry, weaving, fishing, and salt production. The last two occupations directly depend on the sea and the shoreline and have always co-existed in designated parts of the inter-tidal belt.

In recent years however, commercial expansion, especially of salt production, has contested for the space otherwise occupied by small and artisanal fisherfolk. The “bunding” and “drawl” of water for large saltpans has also had an impact on the livelihoods of fisherfolk who seasonally cultivate prawns.

Conflict at the fishing harbour

One such instance came to light in the case of Bavdi bander, a fishing harbour in the Mundra block of the district. Neelkanth, a large salt production company, procured a lease for salt production on the bander. It then started to bund, by reclaiming the sea using stones and soil, more than one kilometer of the inter-tidal area to create saltpans to divert and collect seawater for the production of salt.

Exactly where Neelkanth had carried this out, a fishing community would spend 7 to 8 months every year, fishing with small boats or on foot (known as pagadiya fishing). They used the tidal area for parking their boats but once the bund was built, they had to keep their boats far in to the sea and further away from the coast line and so faced difficulties in the transfer of the fish catch from the boats on to the harbour where it would be sorted and dried before being sold. This was not all. The construction of the bunds also destroyed approximately 20 hectares of mangroves.

Fishing boats parked in the inter-tidal area at Bavdi Bander. Photograph courtesy Kanchi Kohli.

Fishing boats parked in the inter-tidal area at Bavdi Bander. Photograph courtesy Kanchi Kohli.

The biggest revelation of all unfortunately, came to light only after the impact of bunding had already played out. Neelkanth did not have the clearance required under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011.

It came to light by accident. On January 22, 2013, a committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest was visiting the area. Set up on September 14, 2012 to review the violations of the Adani Port and the Special Economic Zone located 45 kilometres away from the Bavdi bander, its members also decided to visit the bander to investigate claims about compensatory mangrove plantations in the area. Representatives of the Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), local fish traders, and representatives of the Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (a fishing union of the area) also accompanied the committee members.

They saw the large bunds that had been built into the sea. The people living at Bavdi bander complained that the bunding created obstacles to the natural flow of the sea water during periods of high and low tide. They also aired their difficulties related to the parking of their boats and how all this was severely affecting their livelihood. On the committee’s recommendations, the Principal Secretary of the Department of Environment of Forests in the Government of Gujarat issued a show cause notice on February 27, 2013. But the action ended there and the bunding continued unabated.

A different kind of salt satyagraha

On the left, a view of the bund built on the inter-tidal area. Photograph courtesy Kanchi Kohli. On the right, a view from the bund showing mangroves and the temporary settlements of fisherfolk. Photograph courtesy Bharat Patel.

On the left, a view of the bund built on the inter-tidal area. Photograph courtesy Kanchi Kohli. On the right, a view from the bund showing mangroves and the temporary settlements of fisherfolk. Photograph courtesy Bharat Patel.

In need of a remedy, some fisherfolk from the area approached the High Court of Gujarat. It took several hearings and over 18 months for a final judgment to emerge from the Court only on August 27, 2015. The District Collector had told the Court on April 10 that the lease for the salt pan had not been renewed. If any bunding activity did happen therefore, the District Collector could take action.

While the case was pending in court, there were some developments at the harbour and Neelkanth had continued its activities unabated. Some time in late 2014, the people of Bavdi, not clear about how the case would proceed, approached the Centre for Policy Research-Namati Environment Justice Program, which had been working in Kutch to understand the impact on livelihood caused by problems related to non-compliance with the law in coastal areas.

Bharat Patel and I work with the programme and we realised that the people of Bavdi knew that even though an illegality had occurred, which was affecting their livelihood, they had not received a remedy. While recording the nature of the problem, we also came to know that the owner of the Neelkanth salt company was trying to secure another permission on the same land, this time in the name of one of his relatives.

With some help from us, they came to know from the website of the Gujarat Costal Zone Management Authority (“GCZMA”) that this was indeed the case. The minutes of a GCZMA meeting held on April 10 this year record that Neelkanth had applied for CRZ clearance in the name of Vasta Govind Chavda. This was for the same area where the bunding had been done, for which the show cause had been issued and a court case was pending.

From the minutes, the fisherfolk realised that the GCZMA had asked the proponents to submit a revised application so that their CRZ clearance can proceed. We saw this as an opportunity and decided to petition the GCZMA to not grant this approval because an illegality had already occurred and because the matter was pending before the Gujarat High Court.

Before they submitted the application to the authority, they discussed the importance of backing their claim with evidence. They had to prove that the place for which CRZ clearance was being sought already had an illegal salt pan and that the matter was sub judice. They relied on Google Maps to plot the area, backed it up with photographs, and also copies of notices that had already been issued to Neelkanth. Only when they had this in hand did the representatives of the affected community draft a letter to the GCZMA demanding that approval be denied. It also explained the relation between Neelkanth and Vatsa Govind. This letter was sent to the Chairman and members of the GCZMA on April 8.

At its very next meeting, on May 15, the GCZMA took a decision that favoured the fishing community. Vatsa Govind’s proposal was rejected because the area in question was rich in biodiversity with dense mangrove patches and sand dunes. The company therefore, had to submit a fresh application for a CRZ clearance for a different area.

Meanwhile, the sea has reclaimed the bund that was created illegally. With the saltpan lying vacant, the tidal water has gradually brought back the boats, the fish catch, and the spirit of the people.

Vimal Kalavadiya works with the CPR-Namati Environment Justice Program. This article has been written with inputs from Bharat Patel who is also associated with the programme.

Categories
Litigation Specialised

After the de-allocations – What happens to the clearances given to coal blocks, now up for auction again?

ItCommunitiesAndLegalAction_KanchiKohli made news last year when the Supreme Court of India “de-allocated” 214 coal blocks. The process of the allocation, the Court held, was illegal and arbitrary. Not all of them were operational, but where they were, the owners had to stop operations. While 42 of them got a six-month reprieve and four were “saved”, the remainder had to halt any mining operations with immediate effect.

All but 4 of the de-allocated ones have, as on April 1, 2015, entered into a process of auctions where either the current lease holders or someone else could emerge the highest bidder. Following the passing of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 in March 2015, the Ministry of Coal had published the details of the auction process. All these coal blocks may soon have new owners.

Given the changed circumstances, there is doubt among communities and activists about what is likely to happen next and how they should prepare for it. For example, for those who had prepared a legal challenge on environmental irregularities, where do remedies now lie? How should they prepare? To the affected communities, the impacts, unresolved illegalities, and the environmental and social liabilities of the coal blocks that are up for auction remain just as relevant.

Questions asked about clearances to coal blocks

Many of these coal blocks, whether or not they had started operations, had received “clearances” from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”) after completing the necessary procedures. These approvals were challenged in courts, on the streets, and through petitions before the executive. For instance, when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, a challenge to the forest clearance granted to the Mahan coal block in Madhya Pradesh was pending before the National Green Tribunal.

Similarly, the public hearing of the Parsa coal block in Chhattisgarh had been completed in the face of stiff opposition. Questions had also been raised about whether due process had been followed for impact assessment and public hearings. The NGT had quashed the approval for forest diversion given to the the neighbouring coal bloc in Parsa East Kanta Besan and had sent the matter back to the MoEFCC for re-examination. The stay on the mining and transportation of the already dug up area was lifted by the Supreme Court soon after.

The affected villagers and campaign groups had also pointed out that the presence of an elephant habitat near the mining site was not disclosed and that the mandatory site inspection was done in a casual manner. Questions were also raised about the circumstances under which the environment ministry had, under directions from the empowered group of ministers, approved the project.

What happens to the matters before the Green Tribunal?

Mahan and a few other coal blocks, whose environment or forest diversion approvals had been challenged before the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), were included in the Supreme Court’s de-allocation list. What did this mean? Did the appeals become infructuous? The NGT on September 26, 2014, while hearing the two cases filed against the Mahan coal block (Appeal No.18 of 2014 and Appeal No.34 of 2014) and also the PEKB coal block, held “the cause of action raised by the Appellant does not subsist any longer.” They also held that that the rights and contentions in relation to the “forest clearance” would be transferred to the third party who would get the coal block.

While dismissing another case challenging the environment clearance given to a BALCO coal block (Appeal No. 46 of 2012), on October 9, 2014, the NGT upheld the right of appeal in accordance with law. This meant that if the environmental clearance is transferred to another allottee, it does not take away the right of a legal challenge both on procedural lacunae and on the merits of assessment. This is yet to be tested before the tribunal but the order is in place.

MoEFCC Clarification

Both the EIA Notification and the process laid out under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for forest diversion allow for transferring the approval to another project authority, during the course of assessment or even after approvals are granted. For instance Section 11 of the EIA notification says, “A prior environmental clearance granted for a specific project or activity to an applicant may be transferred during its validity to another legal person entitled to undertake the project or activity on application by the transferor, or by the transferee with a written “no objection” by the transferor, to, and by the regulatory authority concerned, on the same terms and conditions under which the prior environmental clearance was initially granted, and for the same validity period. No reference to the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned is necessary in such cases.”

On March 23, 2015, there was an additional clarification to Section 11 of EIA notification through an amendment. This allowed for the transfer of environment clearance on the terms above, in case “an allocation of coal block is cancelled in any legal proceeding; or by the Government in accordance with law”.

As on date, the environment clearances of 29 coal blocks have been transferred. Some of these are for approvals granted as far back as in 2000. The approval for  the captive underground coalmine village of Milupara Kondkel in Raigarh, Chhattisgarh is one such. It now stands transferred from Monnet Ispat to Hindalco. The most recently granted environmental approval that has been transferred is for the Ganeshpur Opencase mine in Latehar in Jharkhand. Here, the transfer is from Tata Steel to GMR Chhatisgarh Energy Ltd. Tata Steel had received the approval in January 2014, about seven months before the Supreme Court ruling.

For any affected community and for any of us working on the environment or the social and environmental impacts of coal blocks, this is an important space to watch. Many coal blocks where approvals are pending or where mining operations have not been initiated, are not yet on the radar of re-allocations and other revised regulatory approvals. A lot is likely to be tested in and outside of courts where communities and community-based organisations are involved in legal action.

Kanchi Kohli is a researcher working on law, environment justice, and community empowerment.