Environmental Impact Assessment & Solar Energy Projects in India: Solutions creating the same problems.

Chhaya Bhardwaj* & Saksham Misra**

The installed solar energy capacity of India has reached more than 100 GW, and recently, around 23.83 GW solar energy capacity was added. This historic achievement in India, which has a single objective of promoting a cleaner, greener energy future of India and to transition away from fossil-fuel dependent development, is a welcoming step. However, these solar energy power projects, which are promising a clean energy future in India, are also ignoring the mountain of litigation that has been decided or pending before the Court, on issues of injustice in relation to solar energy in India. In their work Shokrgozar and Girard, conclude that the just energy transition in India effected by solar energy projects is leading to injustices, inequalities, and outcomes that were brought by the fossil fuel economy in the past. According to Sareen, in order to truly make solar energy projects and renewable energy transitions equitable and just, it is recommended to harness the solar energy itself and empower local communities by ensuring that they are interconnected to the project in their vicinity and by ensuring that community wealth is enriched, especially for the victims of energy injustices. One of the ways to ensure this interconnectedness is by conducting impact assessments for projects, and by consulting all stakeholders involved. Currently, the solar energy projects are exempt from impact assessment. In the landmark climate litigation case-  Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) of India had ruled that climate impact assessments are already conducted in India, and dismissed the petition. The NGT could have ordered climate impact assessments and impact assessments for renewable energy projects. positively impacting hundreds of tribal and other local communities; however, establishment of renewable energy projects without impact assessment continues.

With this background, we argue that solar energy projects in India are ignoring the local communities and tribal traditional dwellers of the land occupied and taken away by the government to develop solar energy projects in India. We highlight the decisions by the Constitutional Courts in the context of solar energy in India, where alleged victims of the land takings for solar energy projects are attempting to raise their voices and seek justice.

Victims Of Solar Energy Projects In India

One of the questions that arises in the context of solar energy in India is -  who are these victims of solar energy projects in India? This general question is followed by an assertion that renewable energy is good; it will help save the planet. But if there are people alleging to be victims of solar energy projects, is there a way their victim status could be remedied? These questions arise in the larger background of the overarching question- “Are renewable energy projects creating the same problems like any other developmental project in the past?” In order to understand these three broad questions, we looked at several solar and wind energy litigation cases; however, we have not included all the cases in this piece. For example, in Barkat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2021, the High Court of Rajasthan ordered the State government to look into the legalities of land allocation for solar energy projects, because the petitioners claimed that traditional public utility areas, and traditionally important and protected areas like “Orans”  and lakes like “talabs” and “nadis” were allocated for establishment and operationalization of the solar energy projects. The argument against the petitioner's claim as submitted by the Government was centered around the idea that the lands allocated were “wastelands”, and did not belong to either one person, community, public utility, or protection under the existing laws. This is one of those few cases that has been favorable to the local victims of the development of the renewable energy solar projects in Rajasthan. In cases where decisions have not been in favor of the petitioners alleging to be victims, it does not imply that the petitioners are not victims. As a measure of prevention, and to ensure that none of the stakeholders of solar energy development projects feel like a victim, EIA can be a very effective mechanism, which can allow all the voices to find a platform and enunciate their needs. However, EIA is not mandated for solar energy projects in India, and is discussed in detail below.

EIA Exemption To Renewable Projects

The renewable energy projects are now becoming a project of conflict and litigation before the Indian Constitutional Courts and are largely a “land allocation” issue (Barkat Khan v. State). There is additional indirect litigation which raises issues that are connected to solar energy projects in India. For example, The T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India - Orans Forest Case, 2024, re-evaluated the legality of the Forest policies and Laws developed and amended by the State of Rajasthan to de-categorize the “Orans” from a protected forest status to an unprotected status. While there are no studies in this connection, a question that can be raised here is if the re-categorisation of protected forests in Rajasthan is linked with the development of solar energy projects in the area, and if this re-categorisation allows for a faster development of the renewable energy projects.

Based on our reading of the Barkat Khan Case and T N Godavarman Case (mentioned above, and other cases that will be discussed further), we realised that the conflict is arising due to several factors, however, can be said to based in one specific gap in the existing laws, i.e. a rule that does not require solar energy projects to be reviewed through the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) rules and regulations. In the M K Ranjith Singh v. Union of India, 2024, it became clear that due to a lack of EIA conducted for electricity transmission lines, and overall for the solar energy project, the Supreme Court of India had to transform itself as the institution conducted an EIA. We assert that because in its 2021 order, the court established a committee that looked into the technical feasibility of installing overhead grid lines, so that they do not adversely affect the birds in danger- Great Indian Bustard. This overburdening of the Supreme Court to look into administration of developmental projects could have been easily avoided if the EIA were conducted for these aspects of developmental projects, especially the upcoming renewable energy projects, which will attract rapid acquisition of land, and installation of overhead electricity grid lines.

In the past, the judiciary in India has stated that EIA should be considered as a requirement for overhead grid lines, so that wildlife mortality due to transmission lines is reduced - Mahendra Singh Borwat s/o shri jeevan v. The Secretary AIR 2021. This requirement, however, is not practiced at large, for both transmission lines and for renewable energy projects.

In Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2022, the High Court of Rajasthan opined that EIA of the projects should be conducted and consider the damages that the solar energy project may cause to the greenery in the surrounding area where the project is proposed to be set up. The Court, however, also stated that the preference for establishing a solar energy project would prevail significantly over protection of the greenery in the area. In other words, the Courts are inclined to give preference to establishing renewable energy projects, instead of giving preference to protecting the ecology in the area.

Optional EIA To Secure Project Finance For Renewable Projects

In the Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha Case, there was an EIA conducted because the financing agencies require the borrowers to conduct EIA of their projects in order to receive funding for the projects. Similarly, we noticed that in the Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the DAHANY Solar Power Project, it is clearly mentioned that the assessment is conducted “by the borrower”, and that this solar energy project “does not require preparation of EIA” because solar power projects are not covered by the EIA laws in India. Similar language can also be traced in assessments submitted to developmental banks, for example, assessment for solar energy projects in Andhra Pradesh and Engie Solar Power Project. Additionally, these project reports mention that they conducted public consultations within the area; however, no other specific details are provided.

In May 2025, the Asian Development Bank withdrew its 434 million dollar loan and assistance for a solar power project in Assam. The Bank had approved the support despite the fact that the project was publicly in conflict with tribal traditional dwellers of the area. The large tract of land proposed for the project was in conflict with the traditional dwellers and their relationship with the land, spiritually, culturally, and economically. While the official decision to withdraw does not mention the reasons for cancellation of the loan amount because of the conflict with traditional dwellers, it is important to note that the cancellation of funding has prevented creation of victims in the face of local communities due to a developmental project in India.

In addition to the above, there is growing academic literature that points out the injustices that are caused due to irregularities in law and legal practice by the government in relation to the solar energy projects in India. For example. Girard, Shokrgozar, and Sareen call the ambition of installing solar energy projects in India as “solar nationalism”. In their other work, Shokrgozar and Girard highlight that the government often uses the technique to categorise a land as wasteland, appropriate it and use this political construct to allocate these wastelands for developmental activities, like renewable energy projects. In the cases discussed above (Barkat Khan and Jal Grahan Sansthan), we also notice that the patterned argument of the government was that the lands allocated for the solar energy project were a wasteland, and not owned by the victims.

The situation for traditional dwellers who reside on a land, and their lands are being taken away for developmental projects, may become more precarious now, specifically after the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahnoor Fatima Imran versus M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2025, is likely to add to the difficulties of the traditional dwellers, who may be residing on land, but do not have any documents to legally prove their title. The Mahnoor Fatime Case rules that mere possession of the land may not be sufficient to claim rights on a land or property. For example, in Barkat Khan, the petitioners claimed that the government did not duly consider their applications for regularisation of the land. In Kalyan Singh v. State, the petitioners had made applications for regularisation of their title to the land they were residing on, after the government published notification that invited applications for regularisation. These past and ongoing conflicts about land, their relationship to people, and renewable energy projects are creating the same problems in India as it has in the past, pushing several hundred people into vulnerability and poverty. For example, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, instituted in 1985, fights against developmental projects from the 1980s, depriving traditional dwellers of their land-places of origin, spiritual significance, and traditional dwelling, because development of dams in the 1980s was an important infrastructure project that was needed for the larger development of the country. In the 1980’s there was no law to conduct EIAs in India for developmental projects like the Narmada Dam; however, the World Bank, financier of the project, had approved the financing agreement, stipulating a study for environmental effects of the dam by the government (page 9).

Conclusion

In light of the above, the government should prevent creating the same problems through different and greener developmental projects, and in effect prevent the creation of victims in the face of people who lose their land and relationship to their lands. As a first step, it would be fantastic if the EIA were mandated for renewable energy projects, attracting extensive public consultations, and including climate impact assessment within their mandate. The cases illustrated above do not support the conclusion of the Tribunal in The Riddhima Pandey Case, which is now in appeal and pending before the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court of this country can use this appeal as an opportunity to firstly, direct the government to conduct EIA for renewable energy projects, mandating climate impact assessments. Secondly, prevent itself from stepping into the shoes of EIA institutions in the form of instituting committees to understand the technical feasibility of the renewable projects. This will also prevent overburdening of the judiciary of India, formalising that the administrative/executive work be done in a more uniform format. Finally, the Court’s order can also be important for the alleged victims of these large developmental renewable energy projects.

---

*Chhaya Bhardwaj is Associate Professor at  O. P. Jindal Global University & PhD Candidate at Dublin City University

**Saksham Misra is Assistant Professor at UPES Dehradun