{"id":60609,"date":"2025-12-04T11:05:58","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T05:35:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/?p=60609"},"modified":"2025-12-05T12:53:47","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T07:23:47","slug":"a-dismantling-of-the-base-of-environmental-regulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/editorial-analysis\/04-12-2025\/a-dismantling-of-the-base-of-environmental-regulation","title":{"rendered":"A Dismantling of the Base of Environmental Regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Syllabus: GS3\/Environment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recently, the <strong>Supreme Court of India<\/strong>, in a <strong>2:1 majority<\/strong>, revisited and <strong>recalled its May 2025 ruling<\/strong> (<strong><em>Vanashakti Judgement) <\/em><\/strong>reinstating the possibility of retrospective <strong>environmental clearances (ECs)<\/strong>, citing public interest as justification.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It undermines the foundational principles of environmental governance in India, and collectively dilutes the enforcement mechanisms of environmental law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Vanashakti Judgment of Supreme Court of India<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The <strong>Vanashakti case<\/strong> originated from a petition filed by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, <strong>challenging the legality of post-facto (retrospective)<\/strong> <strong>environmental clearances (ECs)<\/strong> granted to industrial and construction projects.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It challenged the <strong>construction permissions and environmental clearances granted in eco-sensitive zones (ESZs)<\/strong> surrounding the <strong>Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary<\/strong> and parts of the <strong>Western Ghats corridor<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>These were seen as <strong>undermining the core principle of prior environmental assessment<\/strong> enshrined in the <strong>Environment (Protection) Act, 1986<\/strong> and the <strong>EIA Notifications of 1994<\/strong> and <strong>2006.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key Outcomes in Vanashakti Case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Reinforcement of Prior EC Requirement:<\/strong> The <strong>Supreme Court of India<\/strong> reaffirmed that no project can begin without prior environmental clearance <strong><em>(post-facto ECs were illegal)<\/em><\/strong>, reinforcing the preventive nature of environmental regulation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Invalidation of Government Office Memorandums (OMs):<\/strong> The judgment invalidated government notifications that had created a mechanism for granting ECs after project commencement, closing a major legal loophole.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#fff2cc\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Government Notifications Diluting the EIA Regime<\/strong><br>&#8211; <strong>Notification (2017)<\/strong> by the <strong>MoEFCC: <\/strong>It allowed violators \u2014 those who started projects without ECs \u2014 to apply for retrospective approval within six months.<br>&#8211; <strong>Office Memorandum (2021):<\/strong> It extended the leniency, enabling violators who missed the earlier window to regularize their breaches by paying penalties<br>1. <strong>The Original 2025 judgment<\/strong> struck down both, emphasizing that retrospective clearances <strong>defeat the purpose of environmental law<\/strong>, which is to <strong>prevent harm before it occurs<\/strong>, not to accommodate it later.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Recent Reversal By Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u2018<em>Judicial restraint must be exercised in matters of policy implementation where statutory frameworks already exist\u2019, w<\/em>hile ecological protection is crucial.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>It <\/em>reinstated the <strong>environmental clearances<\/strong> that complied with EIA norms post-2020, provided that projects include <strong>biodiversity offset measures<\/strong> and <strong>annual ecological audits<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The restoration and monitoring directives remained in force but under the oversight of MoEFCC\u2019s <strong>Central Empowered Committee (CEC)<\/strong> instead of the independent state committee proposed earlier.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Justice Bhuyan\u2019s Dissent: Upholding the Spirit of Environmental Law<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>He underscores that <strong>laws are designed to anticipate harm, not excuse it<\/strong> and warns that replacing preventive scrutiny with after-the-fact regularization <strong>undermines decades of judicial progress<\/strong> in environmental protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He highlights the past rulings like <em>Common Cause vs Union of India<\/em> (2017) which explicitly held that <strong>retrospective ECs are \u2018detrimental to the environment\u2019<\/strong> and <em>MC Mehta<\/em> cases, which insisted on prior approvals even for renewals.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#ebecf0\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Environmental Regulation in India<\/strong><br>&#8211; <strong>Legal and Institutional Framework:<\/strong><br>1. <strong>Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:<\/strong> An umbrella legislation empowering the central government to take measures for environmental protection.<br>2. <strong>Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:<\/strong> Establish regulatory bodies like the Central and State Pollution Control Boards.<br>3. <strong>Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:<\/strong> Govern forest use and biodiversity conservation.<br>4. <strong>EIA Notification, 2006:<\/strong> Mandates environmental impact assessments for large-scale projects.<br>&#8211; MoEFCC is the nodal agency for policy and implementation, while the National Green Tribunal (NGT) serves as a specialized judicial body for environmental disputes.<br><strong>Judicial Oversight and Recent Shifts<\/strong><br>&#8211; The<strong> right to a clean and healthy environment<\/strong> as part of <strong>Article 21 of the Constitution<\/strong>.<br>&#8211; The <strong>Supreme Court of India<\/strong> has recognized the <strong>precautionary principle<\/strong>, <strong>polluter pays principle,<\/strong> <strong>intergenerational equity<\/strong>, and <strong>sustainable development<\/strong> as cornerstones of environmental governance.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Implications of Review Judgment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Weakening of the EIA process:<\/strong> Public hearings and expert reviews risk becoming mere formalities, stripped of preventive power.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Normalization of violations:<\/strong> Project proponents may willingly ignore EC requirements, expecting later regularization through fines.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Regulatory paralysis:<\/strong> The state\u2019s authority to enforce environmental law diminishes, and deterrence fades.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Crisis of judicial credibility:<\/strong> The reversal undermines faith in the Court\u2019s commitment to environmental justice and the <strong>rule of law<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Other Implications<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Revisits the role of High Courts<\/strong> in enforcing ecological norms beyond statutory limits.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Highlights judicial-policy tension<\/strong> in balancing conservation and development.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>May influence pending cases<\/strong> related to mangrove protection and ESZ notifications across India.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Signals a <strong>shift towards centralized ecological governance<\/strong>, reducing NGO-led regional litigation leverage.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court\u2019s review in <em>CREDAI vs Vanashakti<\/em> marks a <strong>regressive moment<\/strong> in India\u2019s environmental jurisprudence. It signals that <strong>economic expediency can override ecological prudence<\/strong>, eroding decades of progress in building a preventive and participatory environmental regime.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As the Court reassembles to rehear the matter, it needs to recognize that what stands at risk is <strong>not merely the validity of two notifications<\/strong>, but the <strong>integrity of India\u2019s environmental rule of law<\/strong> and its <strong>constitutional promise of a livable planet<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#fff2cc\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Daily Mains Practice Question<\/strong><br><strong>[Q]<\/strong> Examine the implications of the Supreme Court\u2019s reversal of the Vanashakti judgment. How does this shift affect the foundational principles of environmental governance in India?<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/a-dismantling-of-the-base-of-environmental-regulation\/article70354391.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Source: TH<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/UPSC-Editorial-Analysis-4-December-2025.pdf\">Download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Published on:<\/strong> 4th December, 2025<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editorial-analysis"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60609","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60609"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60609\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60678,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60609\/revisions\/60678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60609"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60609"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}