SC strikes down ex-post facto environmental clearances, bars Centre from issuing future approvals
New Delhi, May 16 (UNI) In a landmark decision with significant environmental implications, the Supreme Court on Friday categorically barred the Central Government from granting ex-post facto Environmental Clearances (EC) for any projects in the future.
The Court also invalidated past Office Memoranda (OMs) and notifications that permitted such retrospective approvals, especially in the mining sector.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the ruling, holding that prior environmental clearance is a non-negotiable legal prerequisite under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
Reading out the operative part of the judgment, Justice Oka said, 'There are no equities in favour of those who committed gross illegalities without obtaining prior ECs. These are not cases of ignorance. The violators include companies, real estate developers, PSUs, and the mining industries. They knowingly proceeded without mandatory clearances,' Justice Oka said.
The Court declared that the 2017 notification, the 2021 Office Memorandum, and all related circulars or orders enabling ex-post facto environmental clearance were illegal and hence struck down. It also restrained the Centre from issuing any future guidelines or notifications that would permit such retrospective approvals.
However, the Court clarified that ECs already granted under the now-struck-down 2017 and 2021 directives would remain valid and unaffected by the judgment.
The ruling came in response to a batch of petitions led by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, which contested the legal basis of the government's Standard Operating Procedures that allowed the regularisation of projects already operational without prior EC.
The petitioners highlighted that the term 'prior environmental clearance' appeared 34 times in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, underlining its compulsory nature.
The Centre had defended its position by arguing that the 2021 OM and earlier 2017 notification were necessary to deal with legacy violations, claiming that a rigid interpretation would lead to mass demolitions and disrupt essential services. The government further asserted that these instruments were aligned with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and intended to assess and mitigate environmental damage.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this rationale, reiterating that legal compliance cannot be an afterthought, particularly in matters concerning environmental protection.
The Court's interim stay on the impugned OMs, granted in January 2024, has now been made permanent with this final verdict.
The decision sets a precedent for stricter adherence to environmental laws and curbs the recurring practice of regularising violations post-facto.
UNI SNG RN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Impeachment motion against Justice Varma: Govt reaches out to Opposition to build consensus ahead of Monsoon Session
Initiating the process for bringing an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament, the government reached out to Opposition parties on Tuesday in an attempt to build political consensus. Confirming this, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju told The Indian Express: 'I have reached out to the leaders of all major political parties. It's not a political issue, it's a matter of seriousness related to corruption in the judiciary. There is no scope for any political angle in it. We will evolve a consensus.' The move comes a month after a three-member panel set up by the Supreme Court, on May 3, had found credence in the allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at Justice Varma's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. He has since been transferred to the Allahabad High Court. According to sources, Home Minister Amit Shah and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal met Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier on Tuesday to finalise preparations for the exercise. Shah, along with Leader of the House in Rajya Sabha J P Nadda, also met Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. Following these meetings, Rijiju reached out to Opposition leaders. On May 28, The Indian Express had reported that the government was likely to bring an impeachment motion in the Monsoon Session, which is likely to begin in the third week of July. According to sources, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh was among those who Rijiju spoke to on Tuesday. Sources in the Congress said the party was discussing the issue but indicated that it would not have a problem in supporting the move. The party, in fact, is of the view that the government should convene a special session of Parliament at the earliest to set in motion the process and also devise a mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability. This is in line with the resolution passed by the Congress at the April AICC session in Ahmedabad, which said: 'While the Congress recognises that an independent judiciary is intrinsic to protection of Constitutional principles and democracy, it is also true that the judiciary must set safeguards and standards for accountability. A mechanism for judicial accountability, without compromising judicial independence, is the need of the hour.' The Opposition has been given to understand that Meghwal himself could move the motion seeking Justice Varma's impeachment, based on the report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge has to be made through a resolution signed at least by 100 members if moved in Lok Sabha and 50 members if initiated in Rajya Sabha. Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. With the government taking the initiative and seeking to build political consensus, it is expected that the presiding officer would accept it. After a motion for impeachment is adopted by either House, the Speaker/ Chairman has to constitute a three-member committee of inquiry, headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, and including a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. If the committee renders a guilty finding, the report of the committee is then adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and the judge's removal is debated. For an impeachment motion against an SC or HC judge to go through, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge — and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President will pass an order for the removal of the judge. Meanwhile, Opposition leaders said Parliament can dispense with the process of setting up a probe committee since the three-member committee appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna — comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka — has already indicted Justice Varma. The Indian Express had reported on May 9 that then CJI Khanna had forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, along with a recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Modi. Justice Varma was asked to resign but he is learnt to have refused to do so. He was transferred out on March 20 and he took oath as judge at the Allahabad High Court on April 5, but has not been assigned work.
United News of India
43 minutes ago
- United News of India
Modi 'surrendered' after Trump phone call: Rahul
Bhopal, June 3 (UNI) Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of "surrendering" in the context of Operation Sindoor after a phone call by US President Donald Trump. "I know the BJP and RSS people well. They are the type who surrender when put under pressure," Gandhi said while addressing District and Block Congress presidents and party leaders at Ravindra Bhavan here. Referring to the ceasefire announced by India on May 10 after four days of military confrontation with Pakistan under Operation Sindoor, he alleged that Modi ended fighting after Trump made a phone call to him. "Trump made a call and said, 'Modi ji, what are you doing? Narendra surrender.' And, with 'Ji Huzoor' (Ok sir), Narendra Modi ji followed Trump's hint," Gandhi alleged. He drew a contrast between the attitudes of the Congress party and those of the BJP-RSS and cited the example of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's firm stance during the 1971 war with Pakistan. Rahul Gandhi underlined that his Congress party will not surrender and is willing to fight for its principles. He reiterated his party's demand for a caste-based census, saying it should be conducted as per the Telangana model, where extensive consultations were held with people. The Congress leader also targeted industrialist Gautam Adani, alleging that the government is willing to give away everything to him. UNI XC AKT AKK SSP
New Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Parliament's laws out of contempt ambit : SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others, who claimed that the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 to curb Maoist activity was in contempt of the court's landmark verdict against vigilante group Salwa Judum that year. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,' a two-judge bench comprising justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said. Sundar had alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in 2011 to stop support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. However, the bench observed that it was the duty of the state government and the Centre to take adequate steps for restoration of peace and rehabilitation of the residents who have been affected by violence from whatever quarter.
