Environment Ministry Extends Validity of Prior Environmental Clearances For Ports From 10 to 20 Years

Bengaluru: Prior environmental clearances for ports will now be valid for 20 years (compared to the limit of ten years previously), with an option to extend it to 30 years if required.

This change has been brought about through a notification issued by the Union Environment Ministry on September 21, which it says, was based on recommendations by expert committees and stakeholder requests.

However, the validity mentioned in the September 21 notification is different from that specified in the draft that was circulated for public consultation in May, legal researchers told The Wire. The draft had recommended only a 15 year validity period (with an option to increase it by five more years). The public should have been consulted on the change (increasing it to up to 30 years in the latest notification), and such a notification should be issued afresh after a new round of public consultation, they added.

'Rationalising' validity periods for ECs for ports

Prior Environmental Clearances (ECs) are mandatory for projects that could affect the environment. Project proponents have to obtain this clearance, before implementing their projects, from either the state or Union government as per the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006. The laws also specify the validity of these prior ECs. For most projects, ECs are valid for five years. For river valley projects (such as hydroelectric projects) they are valid for ten years or for the full term of the project life as estimated by the Centre’s Expert Appraisal Committee or a State Level Expert Appraisal Committee. For mining projects, the validity is a maximum of thirty years. 

For ports and harbours the validity of Environmental Clearances was ten years with the option to extend it for one additional year, per the Union Environment Ministry. 

But this has now changed.

The Ministry, in its September 21 notification has extended the validity of clearances for ports, harbours, breakwaters and dredging projects to a maximum of 30 years (20 years initially, with options to extend it by ten additional years): 

“The prior Environmental Clearance granted for ports, harbors, break waters and dredging shall be valid for a period of twenty years: Provided that, the period of validity may be extended by another five years, beyond twenty years, subject to the condition that the adequacy of the existing environmental safeguards laid down in the existing Environmental Clearance shall be examined by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee for incorporating such additional environment safeguards in the Environmental Management Plan, as may be deemed necessary,” the notification says.

It also adds that in “deserving cases, where the project has been unable to be operationalised within this extended period”, respective Committees can recommend that the ECs be extended for a further five years.

Per the notification, the Ministry did this because it “received” a request to “rationalise” the validity period of ECs granted to ports and harbours. The Ministry referred this request to the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee which recommended that the validity be extended for an initial period of fifteen years, with an option to extend for five years. These recommendations were referred to the Expert Advisory Committee, which also made the same recommendations.

It was these recommendations (that the validity of ECs for ports harbours be kept at 15 plus five years) that the Ministry circulated for public consultation on May 20 this year. 

However in June, after public comments came in, the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways in a stakeholder consultation requested that the Environment Ministry to “reconsider” the validity period again and increase this to 30 years instead (or for the lifetime of the project, whichever is more) for port projects, just like for mining projects.

The Union Environment Ministry conceded.

Discrepancy between draft and notification

The Environment (Protection) Rules require draft notifications to be put to public consultation precisely so that affected persons can respond to what is actually being proposed. However, in this case, what has been notified is not the draft the public was asked to comment on, said legal researcher Debadityo Sinha, lead, climate & ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The sectoral and advisory committees had settled on a 15+5 year model, and that is what went out for comment, through amendments to paragraph 9(ii)(b), 9(ii)(c) and the proviso to 9(iii), the clauses governing nuclear power projects, capping port clearances at a fixed 20 years, he told The Wire. 

“What got issued instead adopts a materially different framework: an entirely new paragraph 9(iva), modelled on the mining-projects clause 9(iv), pushing the cap to 30 years through multiple extensions, the second five years available even where a project has failed to become operational within the first 25 years, undefined “deserving cases” left entirely to the discretion of the appraisal committee.”

That shift happened after a closed-door meeting with the shipping ministry, which is the beneficiary of this dilution, with no consideration of the views of the people actually affected by it, Sinha added:

“For example, coastal communities never had the chance to comment on the new provision that now governs them. A departure this fundamental should be corrected with a fresh draft for public consultation,” he commented.

There are other concerns too.

Giving a blanket 20 year clearance, extendable by an additional 10, assumes that environmental impacts will remain the same over three decades in a place that morphs seasonally and tidally, and drastically during extreme marine events, commented Nityanand Jayaraman, writer and social activist.

“These morphological changes will only be more accentuated in a warming world,” he told The Wire.

Clearly for 'Modani enterprise', says Jairam Ramesh

Reacting to the notification on social media platform X, former Union mnvironment minister and senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh alleged that the validity of ECs for ports and harbours was “clearly” for the proposed transshipment port in Great Nicobar Island in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The international transshipment container terminal port, along with the other projects on the island, have drawn immense criticism from numerous quarters for the ecological and social impacts it will have on the island and its indigenous communities. 

Clearly being done for the proposed transshipment port in Great Nicobar which will, in all probability, be a Modani enterprise https://t.co/mCk1Ebd975

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) September 22, 2026

The construction of the port, in particular, will require dredging which will affect the vibrant coral reef communities in and around Galathea Bay where the port is to be located. Though the Union government plans to translocate about 16,000 of the 20,000 coral colonies as part of its mitigation measures, this will not work and the corals will die anyway, marine biologists have said.

This port in Great Nicobar, “will, in all probability, be a Modani enterprise”, Ramesh said, referring to the Adani Group. The Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited now operates 15 ports in India. It is one of the ten companies that have filed an Expression of Interest (EOI) to develop and operate the port in Great Nicobar.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.