Introduction
On March 17, 2025, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) notified a pivotal amendment to India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. This amendment reversed a four-year-long exemption granted to certain excavation activities carried out for linear infrastructure projects, such as roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. The change introduces a new Appendix XIV to the EIA Notification, formally defining “linear projects” and setting out standard operating procedures (SOPs) and safeguards that must be followed when sourcing or borrowing “ordinary earth” for such works. The revised position replaces the controversial Item 6 of Appendix IX, which was introduced via the 2020 amendment and was later struck down by the Supreme Court of India.
This development marks a crucial turning point in environmental regulation, rebalancing the delicate equation between infrastructure growth and ecological protection. It reinforces the constitutional mandate of environmental protection and strengthens procedural due diligence, which had been undermined by the 2020 exemption.
Background
In March 2020, the MoEF&CC inserted Appendix IX into the EIA Notification, exempting several types of activities from prior environmental clearance. Among them was Item 6, which allowed the extraction or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects, now defined under Appendix-XIV as projects of slurry pipelines, oil and gas transportation pipeline, highways or laying of railway lines, which require extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth above the threshold of 20,000 cubic metre and does not require prior environment clearance under this notification.[1]
The rationale behind this exemption was ostensibly to ease procedural delays and facilitate swift infrastructure development. However, the language used in the exemption was vague, “linear projects” was not defined and no thresholds or conditions were placed on the volume or method of earth extraction. It made no distinction between ecologically sensitive areas and degraded lands, nor did it outline whether excavation near wetlands, forests, or water bodies required separate clearance. These gaps have resulted in misuse, as developers have exploited the exemption to circumvent clearance processes, even in areas where significant ecological disruption has occurred.
The environmental and legal vacuum prompted a challenge in the Supreme Court through the case of Noble Paikada[2]. In a landmark judgment, the Court struck down Item 6 of Appendix IX, holding it to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It criticised the lack of definitional clarity and absence of procedural checks as contrary to the precautionary principle, a key facet of Indian environmental jurisprudence. The ruling underlined the importance of reasoned exemptions and mandated the State to ensure that executive instruments are not misused under the guise of development.
The 2025 Amendment: Regulatory Realignment
The Amendment addresses these constitutional and environmental shortcomings by removing Item 6 from Appendix IX entirely and introducing a detailed framework under Appendix XIV. This new appendix provides for a structured compliance mechanism by laying down specific environmental safeguards and procedural protocols for excavation activities related to linear projects.
Further, the statutory definition of linear projects ensures that only projects meeting this physical and functional criterion can invoke the compliance framework under Appendix XIV, and no longer can developers claim exemptions merely on a subjective basis.
Implications for Developers
The March 2025 amendment to the EIA Notification, 2006, introduces a layer of procedural discipline that many developers had grown unaccustomed to since 2020, when the exemption was introduced. Excavation for ordinary earth, once a routine and often unregulated aspect of project execution, must now conform to a defined legal framework with clear environmental safeguards. As a result, developers must reassess project timelines, permitting strategies, and even financial allocations to accommodate these newly formalised requirements.
From a project planning standpoint, this shift compels developers to initiate environmental risk assessments much earlier in the infrastructure development lifecycle. The sourcing of earth is no longer a logistical afterthought, but a regulated activity that demands formal documentation, compliance with environmental safeguards, and, in all cases, submission of detailed excavation plans to competent authorities. Project proponents will now need to identify and justify excavation sites, plan for restoration, manage dust and drainage issues, and ensure that activities do not encroach upon environmentally sensitive areas, all while remaining within the limits defined in Appendix XIV. Even where full environmental clearance is not required, the excavation process must adhere to a procedural regime, overseen by environmental authorities. This inevitably requires internal compliance systems, legal oversight, and liaison mechanisms to be put in place within project organisations, particularly for large-scale infrastructure enterprises with multiple sites and contractors.
Conclusion
The March 2025 amendment of the EIA Notification, 2006, signals a return to environmentally resilient infrastructure governance. It reintroduces essential oversight over excavation activities that had, for several years, proceeded in a regulatory vacuum. By addressing definitional ambiguities, embedding procedural checks, and aligning with constitutional and judicial mandates, the amendment repairs a significant lacuna in India’s EIA regime.
As India advances its infrastructure goals under ambitious missions like PM Gati Shakti, the balancing act between pace of development and sustainability must be carefully maintained. The reclassification of linear projects under Appendix XIV is not merely a bureaucratic adjustment, it is a reassertion of the fundamental principle that economic development must be legally accountable and ecologically respectful.
For further information, please contact:
Bose Varghese, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
bose.varghese@cyrilshroff.com
[1] Clause 1, Appendix-XIV, MoEFCC Notification dt. March 17, 2025, available at: https://parivesh.nic.in/publicdocument/UPLOAD_OM_NOTIFICATION/IA_DOCS/1001_19032025024958.pdf.
[2] Noble Paikada v. Union of India and Ors., [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1249.
