In a significant policy shift aimed at accelerating project approvals, the Union environment ministry has removed the requirement for developers of non-coal mining and several infrastructure projects to submit proof of land acquisition as a pre-condition for obtaining environmental clearance (EC). The move, formalised through an office memorandum (OM) issued on December 18, 2025, is intended to streamline and fast-track the clearance process for large projects, but has also triggered concerns among environmental experts and former forest officials who see it as a dilution of long-standing safeguards.

What the change entails

Under the earlier framework, the environment ministry insisted that project proponents demonstrate at least the initiation of the land acquisition process before an environmental clearance could be considered. This requirement was laid down in a 2014 OM, which specified that developers could submit a preliminary notification issued by the state government under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In cases where land was to be acquired by private entities, a credible document showing the intent of landowners to sell their land for the proposed project was considered sufficient.

In February 2025, the ministry introduced a partial relaxation. A clause was added allowing a confirmation from the state government or its authorised agency—indicating its intent to acquire land for the project as described in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report—to be treated as acceptable proof.

The December 18, 2025 OM goes a step further. It removes the requirement altogether for certain categories of projects, stating that consent from landowners and the status of land acquisition should not be linked with the grant of environmental clearance, particularly for non-coal mining projects.

Projects covered under the relaxation

The change applies to a wide range of activities that are central to India’s infrastructure and energy ambitions. These include non-coal mining, offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration and production, oil and gas transportation pipelines, slurry pipelines for coal, lignite and other ores, highway construction, and other large projects. Crucially, the relaxation also applies to projects that pass through environmentally sensitive areas such as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, eco-sensitive zones and coral reef regions.

The stated objective is to reduce procedural bottlenecks and avoid delays that often arise because land acquisition is a complex, time-consuming process involving multiple stakeholders, legal provisions and, frequently, resistance from affected communities.

Government’s rationale

The environment ministry has justified the move by citing recommendations of the non-coal mining Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC). According to the December OM, the matter was referred to the sectoral EAC, which, after deliberation, concluded that delinking landowner consent from the grant of environmental clearance appeared reasonable.

The EAC observed that in many mining projects, actual mining operations commence only after the EC is granted, while land acquisition continues in a phased manner depending on operational requirements. Insisting on land acquisition documents at the appraisal stage, the committee noted, may not be practical for certain projects and could unnecessarily slow down approvals.

Following these recommendations, the ministry sought comments on whether the amended approach should apply to other sectors governed by the 2014 OM. Based on the inputs received, it concluded that requiring land acquisition documents during EC appraisal was not feasible in several cases.

Concerns over sequencing and safeguards

While the government argues that the change will improve efficiency, several experts caution that it may have unintended consequences. Chetan Agarwal, an environment and forest policy analyst, points out that the 2014 OM only required evidence that the land acquisition process had begun, not its completion. By removing even this minimal requirement, he argues, the process could become more sequential—environmental clearance first, land acquisition later—potentially lengthening the overall timeline if acquisition begins only after EC is granted.

Former forest officials and environmentalists have expressed deeper concerns about the broader implications. Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer and former principal chief conservator of forests in Kerala, notes that the 2014 framework incorporated safeguards to ensure that there was at least some credible indication of land acquisition status before granting clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006.

According to her, the 2025 notification eliminates these prerequisites for a wide range of projects, including mining of minerals and the laying of pipelines through protected and eco-sensitive areas. She argues that this represents another step in a series of policy decisions that prioritise mining and infrastructure expansion over environmental conservation.

Impact on wildlife and constitutional protections

Critics also warn that the new OM could weaken the effective functioning of other environmental laws, particularly the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Under the existing system, projects that involve diversion of land within protected areas require approval from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SC-NBWL). Environmental clearance is supposed to follow a careful consideration of such wildlife-related approvals.

By allowing ECs to be granted without clarity on land acquisition, critics argue, the process risks turning wildlife clearances into a formality, as approvals by the SC-NBWL may effectively become a fait accompli once an EC has already been issued.

Srivastava further contends that the dilution undermines constitutional safeguards enshrined in Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, and Article 48A, which directs the state to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. In her view, the justification for such a relaxation is difficult to understand except as a measure to facilitate mining and benefit project proponents.

Balancing speed and scrutiny

The policy shift comes at a time when the Union government is aggressively pushing infrastructure development as a cornerstone of economic growth. Faster clearances are seen as essential to meeting ambitious targets in mining, energy, transport and industrial expansion. Delays in land acquisition and environmental approvals have long been cited by industry as major hurdles to project execution.

However, the debate over the new OM highlights a recurring tension in India’s regulatory framework: the balance between speed and scrutiny. Environmental clearance is not merely a procedural step but a key mechanism to assess ecological impact, social costs and long-term sustainability. Land acquisition, in turn, is closely tied to issues of displacement, rehabilitation and consent of affected communities.

By separating these processes more distinctly, the government hopes to reduce friction in approvals. But critics argue that doing so risks marginalising environmental and social considerations, especially in ecologically fragile regions and among vulnerable populations.

The road ahead

Whether the new approach will achieve its stated goal of faster project implementation without exacerbating conflicts remains to be seen. Much will depend on how state governments handle land acquisition after ECs are granted, and whether safeguards related to rehabilitation, wildlife protection and public consultation are effectively enforced at later stages.

For now, the December 2025 OM marks a clear shift in regulatory philosophy—one that prioritises expediency and flexibility in approvals. As infrastructure and mining projects expand into sensitive landscapes, the impact of this change will likely be tested in courts, on the ground, and in the ongoing debate over development versus conservation.