Progress or Pretext? Reading Between the Lines of MoEFCC’s Recent Draft Rules for the Standalone Cement Industry.

-Shubhi Agarwal & Sharvari Barve*

Introduction

On 26th September 2025, the MoEFCC issued a notification exempting Standalone Cement Grinding Units from Environmental Clearance requirements, arguing that it is unfair for both integrated cement plants and standalone cement plants to bear the burden of similar regulations in terms of clearance, thereby providing relaxations on the latter. These units were of the specification with a production capacity not exceeding 1.0 million tonnes per annum that are engaged solely for grinding clinker sources externally, without any on-site clinkerisation, a process of creating a mixture which is later ground up to become cement. The repercussions of the same are that prior approval as mandated under the EPA 1986 and the EIA Notification, 2006, which requires an independent assessment of a project’s environmental impact, public consultation, and compliance with site-specific safeguards before construction or operation of the plan, is effectively removed. The ministry asserts that this move will promote green logistics and environmental governance in the nation.

Given the already fragile state of environmental governance in India, this blog contends that the classification adopted by the government is unreasonable and arbitrary, lacking any intelligible differentia or rational nexus as required under Article 14 of the Constitution. While the media frames this issue from a crony capitalist viewpoint, the authors attempt to delve deeper to uncover the legal and social dimensions of this issue.

The blog is divided primarily into 2 sections, wherein, first, the author will assess the constitutionality of the move with respect to Article 14, and then, second, the aspect of carbon colonialism driving this move will be covered.

1.  Constitutionality of the Draft Rules as per Article 14

   
   

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the SC laid down the well-recognised twin test of Article 14. This Article allows the government to make classifications only when they are based on an intelligible differentia, and the differentia must have a rational nexus to the policy’s objective. Furthermore, the classification as per the judgement can be founded on different bases; it could be geographical, according to object, occupation or the like. The only contention is that it needs to have a reasonable nexus with the object of the statute.

1)     Can the classification be called reasonable?

In the present case, the notification has been issued with the clear objective of promoting green logistics, i.e. business practices that minimise the environmental impact of logistics networks and delivery operations. The classification introduced under the notification has been made by the Ministry based on two criteria: the scale of operations and the environmental impact of the respective units. From a prima facie standpoint, this basis for classification appears reasonable and plausible.

In this regard, it is important to note that in January 2025, the Central Pollution Control Board released a revised methodology for categorising industries. Under this framework, standalone cement units without captive power plants have been placed in the Orange category, whereas integrated cement plants have been classified under the Red category. This classification reflects a regulatory recognition that Standalone Units have a comparatively lower pollution potential than integrated cement plants. Therefore, there is no real dispute regarding the distinction between these two categories of industries, and it is reasonable, at least at a preliminary level, to conclude that standalone plants may be subjected to a distinct set of regulations.

However, it is explicitly written in these directions that the purpose of this classification is to ensure environmentally consistent establishment of industries and to incentivise the adoption of cleaner technologies, thereby minimising pollution at source. Therefore, this industrial classification does not warrant an exemption from EC on standalone units.

Secondly, the orange category classification, under the CPCB norms, governs only the consent regime under the Air and Water Acts. The consent regime includes formal permission to establish and operate the plant, issued by State Pollution Control Boards under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1981 . This is a distinct and narrower inquiry than the comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment required for EC, and it does not automatically override other statutory obligations like EIA requirements given under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 (“EPA”) specifically, Section 3 and Section 6 which empower the Central Government to take measures for protecting and improving the environment to issue directions, read with Rule 5 of the EPA rules, 1986. The EIA notification historically treats all standalone cement grinding units as requiring prior EC, irrespective of their pollution intensity. The Schedule to the EIA Notification clearly lists standalone grinding units as category B  projects that need EC. In fact, in Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, the SC held that a “blanket exemption” from EC, granted for the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines, was wholly arbitrary and contrary to the legislative intent of the EPA.

Thirdly, no explicit differentiation has been found in other countries' regulatory frameworks for standalone cement units. In fact, in the U.S., a higher threshold of environmental safeguards is set and the approach followed is that of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which provides a more scientific method to quantify environmental impacts across every stage of a product’s existence from raw material to manufacturing, use, and disposal. Although regulatory comparisons must account for differing environmental and institutional contexts, the absence of any such classification in terms of exemption from clearance for standalone cement grinding units in other jurisdictions is telling.

Fourthly, the ministry’s classification ignores other equally material environmental determinants recognised in the case of Harbinder Singh Sekhon v. State of Punjab, which established the need for a context-sensitive assessment of risk; one which accounts for location, proximity to habitations, cumulative emissions and the public exposure to the unit. It is this established mode of governance that these draft rules disrupt. Regulatory and judicial scrutiny of cement projects has consistently been triggered by particulate emissions and dust dispersion, irrespective of whether clinkerisation is involved. Countless instances across the country have exhibited a need for careful implementation of the established EIA standards for public health. The ACC Cement plant incident at Khapardih, Chhattisgarh- where students reportedly fell ill due to toxic emissions- illustrates that public health risks arise from grinding, handling, and transport activities common to all cement units, standalone and integrated. Clearances for units of Shree Digvijay Cement Company in Gujarat were also conditional upon extensive safeguards following site-specific appraisal. Adani Cementation Ltd. have faced similar inspections in their Raigad project. In all of the above instances, the authorities have taken cognisance of the severity and imposed adequate restrictions in the interest of public health. The government in such cases has focused on buffer zones, green belts, and population proximity, demonstrating that environmental harm in the cement sector is not contingent upon only 2-3 factors like calcination/ clinkerisation or transportation and is rather a comprehensive determination.

Interestingly, the degree of care in these projects, contrasted with the lack of the same in the Ambuja Cement project at Mohone, Kalyan, suggests that media claims of this move being an exhibition of a “crony-capitalistic tendency” might not be entirely true. There must clearly be some je nais se quoi in this project, as opposed to the previous equally lucrative undertakings, which leaves more to unpack from this particular project. The project in Mohone is located in close proximity to dense habitations, rivers, and a freshwater lake, which has attracted extensive public opposition during hearings precisely because of these site-specific characteristics. During public hearings conducted in September 2024, more than 2,900 objections were recorded, and environmental groups have further contended that the project also contravenes the prescribed 500-meter buffer from residential areas.

This would lead any reasonable person to wonder about the seemingly arbitrary classification criteria for separate plants. The same environmental concerns that led to the rejection of the Raigad plant were not treated as sufficient grounds to reject the Mohone plant, despite their similarity.

Therefore, it can be evaluated that there is a lack of intelligible differentia as the draft rules treat standalone grinding units as a homogenous, low-risk category based solely on the absence of clinkerisation, while totally disregarding the other factors as explained above. Thus, the ministry’s classification can be found to be devoid of a comprehensive analysis.

2)     How does this classification fail to meet the rational nexus ?

As mentioned earlier, the ministry frames this move to encourage green logistics and environmental governance, which refers to a set of regulatory processes, mechanisms and organisations through which political actors influence environmental actions and outcomes.

Exempting standalone cement units from basic environmental appraisal directly undermines these objectives. EC under the EPA is a preventive mechanism designed to assess site-specific risks, mandate mitigation measures, and incorporate public participation before project execution.

Removing this appraisal requirement actually goes against the objective of environmental governance. It reduces regulatory oversight at the very stage where supervision is most crucial. More importantly, this classification does not have a clear or logical connection with the stated aim of promoting green logistics.

Secondly, the exemption seems to rely heavily on the mode of transportation as a key factor. However, transportation is not even a recognised criterion under the existing framework of the EIA Notification, 2006 for classifying projects as Category A or Category B, or for deciding their clearance process. Under the 2006 Notification, projects are categorised based on factors such as the scale of operations, the potential impact on human health and natural resources, and production capacity. For instance, cement plants with a capacity of 1.0 MTPA or more fall under Category A, while those below 1.0 MTPA and standalone grinding units fall under Category B, with additional conditions depending on their location. Nowhere in this classification is the mode of transportation mentioned.

This makes the draft exemption’s focus on transportation appear disconnected from the established regulatory framework. Further, even if transportation is accepted as a relevant factor, experts agree that while certain transportation methods may reduce pollution, this does not eliminate environmental concerns. In fact, stricter norms should still apply to how standalone grinding units operate and how they store and handle raw materials, as these aspects also significantly affect pollution levels.

Additionally, this amounts to an outsourcing of emissions, as clinker production must necessarily occur elsewhere for standalone units to carry out further grinding and processing. The most emission-intensive stage of production is therefore merely shifted upstream. Such displacement does not result in any real reduction of environmental harm and, consequently, fails to advance the objective of environmental governance. Exposure to particulate matter (PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀), a part of the emissions from (standalone) cement plants, has been linked to serious respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as documented by the WHO.

With this in mind, the course of action opted by the government authorities, vis-à-vis the Mohone approval, granted for public benefit, conveniently overlooks the lack of clearances, therefore actively harming the health of the very people whose benefit is being prioritised. The juxtaposition fails the Wednesbury test, wherein the “greater good” cannot be justified at the cost of an equally great harm to society.

2. Carbon colonialism in operation

   
   

Finally, this blog argues that the issue goes beyond crony capitalism and amounts to “carbon colonialism”, where industries shift pollution and health risks onto politically powerless communities. This essentially means that these types of plant setups are also dependent on the political power of the people in that particular region. The plant in Sangrur illustrates this imbalance perfectly. In Sangrur, the strong community mobilisation and legal intervention successfully halted the clearance of a proposed cement plant. Similarly, in Raigad, Maharashtra (Adani Cementation Ltd.), saw strong political mobilisation led to the proposal’s cancellation, whereas largely similar forms of public outrage did not churn out the same results in the Mohone project. The interesting thing is that for both the Mohone and Raigad plants, the corporate entity involved belongs to Adani Group. One cannot deduce that this arbitrary decision is part of the capitalistic web spun by one entity, as differential treatment is given to all their projects. That leaves us with the location being a consideration for such disparity. The lack of consideration for the surrounding ecology with respect to the Mohone plant directly contradicts all established constitutional values and instead engages in capitalistic endeavours, which are inconsistent with the values of our constitution. Contemporary jurisprudence has gone a step further by recognising the right to a healthy environment, alongside international sentiment leaning towards environmental protection through instruments such as the precautionary principle. This contrast reveals how regulatory outcomes often hinge not on environmental merit but on the visibility and influence of the affected communities.

While many such legislations control the actions of the government, there exist backdoors to such laws that allow them to stray from reason. Section 3 (2) (iv) of the EPA grants the central government the power to create standards for the discharge and call the shots on all emission-related restrictions, granting it unbridled power. The (mis)use of this power allows the seepage of carbon colonialism in decisions about the Mohone plant, and many other projects, where there is lower political activism or outreach. Therefore, regions with higher political organisation and economic leverage (such as Raigad, Konkan) see their concerns acted upon, while lower-income neighbourhoods like those around the Mohone plant are treated as expendable, bearing the costs of environmental degradation without ever being heard, making this procedural leap a tell-tale sign of carbon colonialism.

The way forward

The need of the hour, in the interest of sustainable development, is an environment-centric approach that prioritises human health over considerations of business efficiency. In this context, while the constitutionality of treating different types of cement units differently may fall within governmental discretion, such differentiation fails to account for its practical impact on people and the environment and therefore lacks a rational nexus. It is important to note that earlier, objections to the establishment of cement plants could be raised on multiple grounds due to the mandatory requirement of obtaining environmental clearance. However, the takeaway is that if the proposed draft rules are enacted into law, this crucial right to object would effectively be curtailed by the government. Such a right holds significant importance, as it enables the assessment of potential risks even in conventionally “safe” plants equipped with mitigation mechanisms. Therefore, the government has a fiduciary duty to act as a trustee of natural resources, ensuring their protection for public use and intergenerational equity. In sum, given the current environmental crisis and its severe impact on public health, the need of the hour is an approach rooted in public participation and ensuring meaningful involvement of affected communities in environmental decision-making.

*Shubhi Agarwal, a second-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, and Sharvari Barve, a second-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai

The views expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent the beliefs of Pith & Substance: The CCAL Blog.