Syllabus: GS3/Environment
Context
- Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in a 2:1 majority, revisited and recalled its May 2025 ruling (Vanashakti Judgement) reinstating the possibility of retrospective environmental clearances (ECs), citing public interest as justification.
- It undermines the foundational principles of environmental governance in India, and collectively dilutes the enforcement mechanisms of environmental law.
Vanashakti Judgment of Supreme Court of India
- The Vanashakti case originated from a petition filed by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, challenging the legality of post-facto (retrospective) environmental clearances (ECs) granted to industrial and construction projects.
- It challenged the construction permissions and environmental clearances granted in eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) surrounding the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary and parts of the Western Ghats corridor.
- These were seen as undermining the core principle of prior environmental assessment enshrined in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notifications of 1994 and 2006.
Key Outcomes in Vanashakti Case
- Reinforcement of Prior EC Requirement: The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that no project can begin without prior environmental clearance (post-facto ECs were illegal), reinforcing the preventive nature of environmental regulation.
- Invalidation of Government Office Memorandums (OMs): The judgment invalidated government notifications that had created a mechanism for granting ECs after project commencement, closing a major legal loophole.
| Government Notifications Diluting the EIA Regime – Notification (2017) by the MoEFCC: It allowed violators — those who started projects without ECs — to apply for retrospective approval within six months. – Office Memorandum (2021): It extended the leniency, enabling violators who missed the earlier window to regularize their breaches by paying penalties 1. The Original 2025 judgment struck down both, emphasizing that retrospective clearances defeat the purpose of environmental law, which is to prevent harm before it occurs, not to accommodate it later. |
Recent Reversal By Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court
- ‘Judicial restraint must be exercised in matters of policy implementation where statutory frameworks already exist’, while ecological protection is crucial.
- It reinstated the environmental clearances that complied with EIA norms post-2020, provided that projects include biodiversity offset measures and annual ecological audits.
- The restoration and monitoring directives remained in force but under the oversight of MoEFCC’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) instead of the independent state committee proposed earlier.
Justice Bhuyan’s Dissent: Upholding the Spirit of Environmental Law
- He underscores that laws are designed to anticipate harm, not excuse it and warns that replacing preventive scrutiny with after-the-fact regularization undermines decades of judicial progress in environmental protection.
- He highlights the past rulings like Common Cause vs Union of India (2017) which explicitly held that retrospective ECs are ‘detrimental to the environment’ and MC Mehta cases, which insisted on prior approvals even for renewals.
| Environmental Regulation in India – Legal and Institutional Framework: 1. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: An umbrella legislation empowering the central government to take measures for environmental protection. 2. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Establish regulatory bodies like the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. 3. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Govern forest use and biodiversity conservation. 4. EIA Notification, 2006: Mandates environmental impact assessments for large-scale projects. – MoEFCC is the nodal agency for policy and implementation, while the National Green Tribunal (NGT) serves as a specialized judicial body for environmental disputes. Judicial Oversight and Recent Shifts – The right to a clean and healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution. – The Supreme Court of India has recognized the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, intergenerational equity, and sustainable development as cornerstones of environmental governance. |
Implications of Review Judgment
- Weakening of the EIA process: Public hearings and expert reviews risk becoming mere formalities, stripped of preventive power.
- Normalization of violations: Project proponents may willingly ignore EC requirements, expecting later regularization through fines.
- Regulatory paralysis: The state’s authority to enforce environmental law diminishes, and deterrence fades.
- Crisis of judicial credibility: The reversal undermines faith in the Court’s commitment to environmental justice and the rule of law.
Other Implications
- Revisits the role of High Courts in enforcing ecological norms beyond statutory limits.
- Highlights judicial-policy tension in balancing conservation and development.
- May influence pending cases related to mangrove protection and ESZ notifications across India.
- Signals a shift towards centralized ecological governance, reducing NGO-led regional litigation leverage.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court’s review in CREDAI vs Vanashakti marks a regressive moment in India’s environmental jurisprudence. It signals that economic expediency can override ecological prudence, eroding decades of progress in building a preventive and participatory environmental regime.
- As the Court reassembles to rehear the matter, it needs to recognize that what stands at risk is not merely the validity of two notifications, but the integrity of India’s environmental rule of law and its constitutional promise of a livable planet.
| Daily Mains Practice Question [Q] Examine the implications of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Vanashakti judgment. How does this shift affect the foundational principles of environmental governance in India? |
Previous article
Indian Judicial System Crying For Reform
