Sreya Kanugula
On 27th January 2021, the High Court of Delhi stated that it couldn’t understand the Centre’s vehement resistance to its order to carry out the translation of the Environment Impact Assessment’s (EIA) draft in all 22 languages as stated in the Constitution’s Eighth Schedule.
The special bench comprising Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan stated that the objections made in local languages to the draft would need to be understood by the government and thus, “what was the harm in translating it in all the 22 languages” they asked.
The ASG, Chetan Sharma representing the Centre, informed that they had already received around 20 lakh replies till date to the draft in question and this is why they had deemed it unnecessary for further translation of the draft.
The Additional Solicitor General also stated that translating all the languages would cause several administrative problems for the government since they “do not have the wherewithal to carry out the translations.”
“It will be administratively chaotic. There will be gaping gaps in the different translations,” Mr Sharma claimed and further continued that it wasn’t written in the Constitution either for translation of notification in all 22 of the mentioned languages.
However, the court didn’t agree with the ASG’s stand and stated that it wasn’t a factually impossible job in the age of modern-day such as this. But it stated for indications to be given by the government on what difficulties they were facing in the EIA draft’s translation.
During the hearing, the court also stated that though it was written that the final notification might not need compulsory translation into all these languages, the Constitution doesn’t mention anything on the draft which was put out there for garnering public opinion.
“We don’t understand why the Union government is resisting vehemently an order of this court for translating the draft into all the languages so that everyone can understand it and respond to it,” the bench said.
The government was given time by the court till the next hearing on February 25th to record their difficulties in the draft’s translation in all these vernacular languages.
The government’s plea sought review on the court’s June 30th given direction in 2020 and the bench was hearing on this matter. The plea was on the direction given to the Ministry of Environment to translate the EIA draft’s notification into all 22 languages within a period of 10 days since the order and to extend the date to receive public remarks upon it till the 11th of August.
The order had come into being on a PIL filed by Mr Vikrant Tongad, an environmental conservationist who sought for the notification’s publication in all these languages as well as an extension of the date to receive public remarks upon it till the 11th of August.
This order was challenged by the Centre at the SC initially. The Top Court allowed for the withdrawal of this appeal by the Centre and to file another review in front of the high court.
The SC also placed the proceedings of the contempt plea registered by Mr Tongad for the Centre’s non-compliance of the HC’s June 30th given direction.
In a subsequent order, a plea filed by the ministry sought review on the June 30th order on the grounds that the documents of the drafts were officially required to be published in the languages of Hindi and English alone.
Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Mr Tongad stated to the bench during the hearing on January 27th, 2021, that the draft had been translated in all 22 languages by the Centre but it wasn’t publishing the same while arguing on whether the translations were required according to the law in the first place.
As per Mr Tongad’s plea, the draft of EIA 2020 will provide for project approval post facto and gets rid of public consultation in a few cases.
It also claimed that the draft completely superseded and replaced the current environmental norms.
“This draft notification proposes significant changes to the existing regime, including removing public consultation entirely in certain instances, reducing the time for public consultation from 45 days to 40 days, and allowing post facto approvals for projects,” the petition had stated.