How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

Shows how the EIA Notification, 2006 continues to be changed through piecemeal amendments, particularly on clearance validity.

• The EIA Notification, 2006 is issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
• Under the 2022 amendment, most projects have clearance validity of 10 years plus one, river valley 13 plus two, nuclear 15 plus five, and mining 30 years extendable by 20.
• The 2026 amendment gives ports 20 years plus two five-year extensions, beyond the 20 May 2026 draft that proposed 15 years plus one five-year extension.

Use the Subansiri Upper appraisal as a live example of how the EIA Notification, 2006 works in practice, and of the gaps any revision should address.

• Category A projects are appraised by the Environment Ministry's sectoral Expert Appraisal Committees; the EAC recommended conditional EC for the 1,605 MW project, subject to forest clearance for about 2,733 hectares.
• Forest diversion needs separate approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (renamed Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam in 2023); compensatory afforestation is proposed on 5,466 hectares in Madhya Pradesh.
• Gap: project-by-project appraisal misses cumulative impact of several dams on one river; basin-wide studies are suggested, and a 2009 Supreme Court direction requires upstream proposals to be considered on merit.

Use it to set out the core design of the EIA Notification, 2006 and the principle of prior clearance, the benchmark against which any newer draft's dilutions should be compared.

• The EIA Notification, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, requires listed projects to get clearance before any work begins, after screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal.
• Under the 2006 framework, a 2017 notification opened a one-time, six-month window for violating projects; in Vanashakti v Union of India (29 July 2026) the Supreme Court upheld it but quashed a 2021 Office Memorandum.
• The Court held prior environmental clearance mandatory unless rules are formally amended, so any regime easing post facto approval must be tested against this and Alembic Pharmaceuticals (2020).