Tasked by the Supreme Court with creating a new and independent environment authority, the Ministry of Environment & Forests wants to retain its say in choosing the panel of experts to vet projects, a Cabinet note on the matter shows. This is a change from its earlier position, where the ministry said it would relinquish its powers in such appointments to avoid conflict of interest, and defeats the objective of having a truly independent regulator, says a senior government official…
i have been almost fully out of action for two weeks now. fell ill. still limping back to bloody full normalcy. anyway, here, one of the first stories i filed after getting back. an update on the proposed environment authority — i have been incorrectly calling it regulator till now.
ps – also see these stories on the env authority. one, a larger story on what the moef (ministry of environment and forests, india) proposes to create. and two, an indepth interview with utah university law prof william lockhart re the moef blueprint. this, incidentally, is an idea that has been doing the rounds for a while. the last time india tried to create one was in 2010. see these two stories on the proposed national environment protection authority (nepa) — one, and two. later, this became the national environment assessment and monitoring agency. and then, it went on the backburner before the SC dragged it out of oblivion. see this epw piece on neama by environment lawyer shibani ghosh.
yesterday was profoundly anomalous. i filed two stories. both, as it were, on aadhaar. one on a sting by cobrapost which flagged faulty enrolments. and the other where the supreme court said aadhaar cannot share its database with anyone without consent from the number holders.
this is a significant development. over the last five years, a clutch of government departments and private companies have been collecting biometrics with gusto. however, with the privacy bill still on the drawing board, India has seen biometric data get collected, by multiple agencies, without any laws governing their collection, use or retention.
in the process, the country has entered a world of new risks. without, sigh, getting the safeguards in place. which brings us to the dispute between the cbi and the uidai which culminated in this SC judgement. it is one kind of an outcome.
The SC ruling was in response to a 26 February, 2014 ruling by the Mumbai High Court directing the UIDAI to provide the CBI with biometrics of all residents of Goa. The High Court’s ruling was related to the rape of a seven year old in Vasco last January. The case was handed to the CBI which, as the Aadhaar appeal to the SC says, initially asked it for biometric information of “all the persons in the state. That request was modified and only the fingerprints of 3 specified persons were asked for.”
Later, the CBI dropped that request. Says the Aadhaar affidavit, “The CBI has now found a chance fingerprint and asked Aadhaar to compare its data and the biometric data provided by the CBI.” Aadhaar refused to share information citing two reasons. One, that such a move would violate privacy of the number-holders. And two, that its biometric database and deduplication systems are not designed for forensic inquiries. When its appeal was rejected by the HC, UIDAI appealed to the SC.
what are the protocols for the use of such data? as legal researcher usha ramanathan says in the article: “the idea that databases can be used by anyone makes people vulnerable, especially in a state where there is neither law nor much respect for law.”
the good news is that the SC verdict clarifies matters to some extent. but the country still needs a regime on privacy and data (including biometrics) protection.
out today, this quick and dirty story on nandan nilekani’s stint in upa2. it was a part of a larger package profiling some of the technocrats leaving office along with the upa — c rangarajan, montek singh ahluwalia, the member of the national advisory council, and nilekani.
ET just uploaded an interview with William Lockhart, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law, re the proposed contours of the environment regulator. Professor Lockhart has been studying the Indian environment clearance process for a long time — my 2006-07 thesis on the Environment Impact Assessment Notification had relied on his work to a large extent.
In this interview, he gets into detail on the environmental clearance process — where it stands today, what it needs to be, and what will have to change for India to start balancing environmental needs and developmental demands. Take a look. This interview gets into more detail than the story does.
Q: Take a closer look at this and one sees the possibility of creating a more robust environmental governance architecture here. The environment regulator, the functioning Green Tribunals, India’s well-established environmental laws. The big question, of course, is: whether we will go in that direction or not. What do you think?
A: The current proposals are barely responsive to the instinct you show above. There is absolutely no question in my mind that reform of the EIA/Clearance process is utterly critical to the preservation of India’s critical remaining human and natural habitats. But if possible, reform is even more important to any hopeful sense of India’s future as a responsibly self-governing democracy. At present, clearances of all sorts are being approved with minimal or no meaningful environmental review, under constant political pressure, in disregard of any credible understanding of the content or purposes of existing law, and on the basis of “future” compliance with “conditions” for post-clearance performance on matters that clearly are required by law to be assessed before — not after — clearance, and in any event remain almost wholly unenforced.
I like his point about the rule of law. Really, you can create however many institutions as you like. But without any desire to implement laws, the whole thing is just a bureaucratic exercise.