SC bans retrospective environment permits
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down Centre's office memorandums and notifications that allowed retrospective environmental clearances to projects that began without mandatory approvals, holding that development cannot come at the cost of the environment.
The ruling reinforces the sanctity of the environmental assessments process for construction and mining work and the principle of precautionary protection, experts said, welcoming the decision.
A bench led by Justice Oka ruled that projects that commenced without obtaining mandatory prior environmental clearance cannot be regularised by granting them clearance in future. The 2017 notification that first allowed this and a 2021 office memorandum, along with all related circulars and orders, were declared 'illegal and hereby struck down' while restraining the government from issuing any similar provisions.
'There are no equities in favour of those who committed gross illegalities without obtaining prior environmental clearances,' Justice Oka said while reading the operative portion of the judgment. 'The persons who acted without clearances were not illiterate persons. They are companies, real estate developers, public sector undertakings, mining industries... who knowingly committed the illegalities.'
The bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan, added that, 'hereafter the Central Government shall not come out with any version of the 2017 notification which provides for grant of ex-post facto EC (environment clearance)'.
HT reached out to the ministry of environment forest and climate change for a response but did not get one immediately.
The issue relates to what was released through a 2017 notification as a 'one-time opportunity' for six months for industries to seek ex-post facto (after-the-fact) environmental clearance as part of the mandatory environment impact assessment (EIA) for industries and projects.
In 2021, and then in a follow up memorandum in 2022, the internal directives extended and systematised the approach, creating what activists said was a regularisation mechanism for violating projects. Critics stated this effectively established a parallel pathway for environmental compliance—one that allowed projects to begin first and seek approval later, contradicting the preventive intent of the EIA framework.
To be sure, Friday's verdict, which came on petitions filed by NGO Vanashakti and others, clarified that environmental clearances already granted under the now-invalidated rules would remain unaffected.
The bench said 'the 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development.'
The 2021 memorandum, the court added, was 'an attempt to bring in an ex-post facto or retrospective regime by craftily drafting the SOP... we have no manner of doubt that the 2021 OM which permits grant of EC is completely arbitrary and illegal'.
The ruling came down on the government for 'going out of the way' in order 'to protect those who have caused harm to the environment'. This, it said, 'has to be deprecated by the courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment.'
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to protection of life and personal liberty.
On past cases on this issue, the bench noticed that the matter of ex-post facto EC has been dealt with in two earlier decisions; in Common Cause (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals (2020), where it was held that such approvals is 'completely alien' to environmental jurisprudence.
Environmental activists welcomed the judgment as a significant victory for ecological protection. 'The judiciary has upheld the constitutional obligations of the state to protect the environment and forests. The balance should always be in favour of conservation. You cannot give a freehand to environmental destruction and incentives to people who destroy. The court has correctly observed that people involved in these violations are literate, wealthy and powerful who knew the consequences. We are so thankful that judiciary saw through this game,' said Stalin D, director of Vanashakti.
Stalin emphasised the practical impossibility of undoing ecological damage: 'Once you lose an ecologically important area, how can you recreate it? You destroy a mountain, how do you recreate it?'
Debadityo Sinha, lead-climate & ecosystems at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, described the verdict as 'a victory for environmental rule of law' that reinforces the mitigation hierarchy of 'avoid, minimise, restore, offset' in development projects.
'The practice of granting post-facto environmental clearance subverts this process, violates the Precautionary Principle, and is ultra vires the parent legislation—the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,' Sinha said.
The ruling marks a significant departure from a March 2022 Supreme Court judgment, which had permitted ex-post facto clearances 'in exceptional circumstances' while setting aside a National Green Tribunal order on closure of non-compliant industries.
Debi Goenka, executive trustee of Conservation Action Trust, offered a more measured response:
'The order sounds great on paper, but it is actually seems meaningless since all the violators have got away scot free along with the decision makers who have connived with them. In contrast, the Order issued by the Bench headed by Chief Justice Gavai yesterday has mandated the return of the lands illegally allotted, and if that is not possible, payment of costs and penalties. I do hope this Order also includes similar provisions (since the actual Order is still not available). However, one of the fundamental principles of law is that you cannot benefit from your own illegality— even that principle seems to have been forgotten.'
The ministry of environment, forest and climate change had previously justified the provisions as necessary to bring violating projects 'under the environmental compliance regime' rather than leaving them 'unregulated and unchecked.'
In its March 16, 2017 statement, the Ministry described the notification as providing an opportunity to bring 'such projects and activities in compliance with the environmental laws at the earliest point of time' while emphasising that 'the process for such violators has to be stringent and punitive.'
Industry representatives reacted negatively. 'Ex post facto applications which were under consideration by the ministry should have been allowed since the memos allowed these with penalties. This will now have economic impacts. We should consider that too,' said BK Bhatia, additional secretary general, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
43 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India's ‘pushback' policy violates domestic and international law – but won't face global censure
India's 'pushback' policy of forcing across the border individuals claimed to be undocumented migrants violates both domestic and international law, experts say. Since India launched Operation Sindoor against Pakistan on May 7, it has 'pushed' more than 2,000 people into Bangladesh, The Indian Express reported. At least 40 members of the Rohingya community have been deported to Myanmar even though many of them had cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The legality of the 'pushback' policy has been debated both in India and internationally. But at home, the Supreme Court has not stopped the deportation of Rohingya refugees despite challenges to such actions pending since 2017. Internationally, there is unlikely to be pressure on India from other nations to stop this strategy since many Western nations also employ similar practices, experts say. 'The problem is that most of Europe and the United States are engaged in this,' said Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. 'So, who is going to bell the cat and say this is wrong when everybody is doing it?' Human rights lawyer and writer Nandita Haksar agreed. 'The Western states that are so vociferous in taking up human rights' also push refugees back from their shores, she said. 'Therefore, it would be difficult for the Western states to raise the issue of refugee rights with India.' The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a wartime law to deport Venezuelan immigrants with little to no due process. — The New York Times (@nytimes) March 28, 2025 Assam's claim The most enthusiastic champion of this policy has been Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who said on Monday that his border state had been responsible for 'pushing back' more than 303 people believed to be Bangladeshi. This has been done under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, he said. This was the first time Sarma cited a legal justification for 'pushbacks' that the state government has been carrying out since May. As Scroll has reported, at least three of the 14 who were allegedly 'pushed out' of Assam on May 27 were later brought home. They had been deported on the basis of decisions by the state's foreigners tribunals. But the Supreme Court had stayed the decisions of the tribunals in the case of at least two of these individuals as their appeals are pending. The pushback policy violates India's own constitutional guarantees and established legal procedures for deportation, experts said. Forcibly detaining individuals and physically throwing them out of the country violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, applies to all persons within India's territory, regardless of their citizenship status, said Rita Manchanda, research director at the South Asia Forum for Human Rights. This has been underlined by the Supreme Court in several judgements, she noted. The same article was also violated when the Indian authorities deported Rohingya refugees, forcing them into a country that is gripped by civil war and where they face genocide, experts say. 'Pushing them into an active war zone poses a direct threat to their life,' said Anghuman Choudhury, a doctoral candidate in Comparative Asian Studies jointly at the National University of Singapore and King's College London. Choudhury emphasised that Sarma's statement that deportations will be carried out 'without legal process' violates of Article 14 of the Constitution. This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to everyone within Indian territory. 'Everyone has a right to be heard as per law,' he said. 'You cannot just pick up any suspected foreigner – even the suspected foreigner needs to go through the legal process.' Besides, these processes have been instituted to ensure that no Indian citizens are expelled from their country, he added. Is this a new policy? Experts told Scroll that while India had engaged in 'push backs' of foreigners before, it had never adopted this as a strategy for deportations. Contrary to Sarma's claim that 'pushbacks' are a 'new innovation', this method has been used on the India-Bangladesh border since at leastt 1979, said Choudhury, the doctoral candidate – but the purpose has changed. Until recently, 'pushbacks' meant that the Assam border police or the Border Security Force would stop individuals they spotted trying to enter India from Bangladeshi territory and force them to return or would 'push back' those who had managed to cross the border into India. 'But those were ad hoc cases,' Choudhury said. 'What we are seeing today seems to be a more large-scale systematic policy.' What is also unusual is India's decision to 'push back' refugees, said Nandita Haksar. 'The rate and cruelty with which refugees, including those recognised by the [United Nations High Commission for Refugees] are being deported even at the risk of their lives is new and disturbing,' she said. Ravi Nair agreed. 'India had pushed back people before…,' he said. 'But this kind of pure abduction and putting them into no man's land is clearly crossing the Rubicon.' Violation of domestic law and due process The legal process for deportations in India is articulated in a Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2011. All deportations must be initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs sending the identity details of the apprehended foreigner to their country's embassy. The person can be deported only after confirmation of the person's nationality has been received through these diplomatic channels. The current 'pushback' policy bypasses these procedures, Nair said. 'We have to submit the names and the documents of alleged Bangladeshi nationals to the government of Bangladesh,' he said. 'Once those are verified and Bangladesh is willing to take them, then they are sent back. That is clearly not being followed.' Last month, Scroll reported that 40 Rohingya refugees who had been detained in Delhi alleged that they had been forced off a navy vessel in the Andaman Sea with life jackets on May 7 and told to swim towards Myanmar. Choudhury pointed out that the deportations of Rohingya refugees in this manner violated a 2021 order of the Supreme Court. In a case requesting a halt to the expulsions of Rohingya refugees, the court had said that they could be deported. But it explicitly mandated that deportations must adhere to due process, a directive that appears to be 'directly violated' by the current policy, Choudhury said. Breach of international law Experts told Scroll that 'pushing back' refugees violated India's obligations under international law and customary international law. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from returning individuals to a country where they would face persecution, is considered jus cogens – a peremptory norm of international law binding on all states. 'The principle of non-refoulement is also seen as a customary international law,' making it binding even if a country has not ratified specific conventions, Choudhury said. India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. 'But as a member of the UN General Assembly, which is the parent body of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, India is strongly expected to adhere by customary international law,' he said. 'Customary law transcends treaty obligations.' He pointed out that India is a signatory to the Bangkok Principles on Status and Treatment of Refugees, issued in 2001, and the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees, which India signed in 2018. Both mandate non-refoulement as a principle to be upheld by their signatories. India is also a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These treaties too contain provisions that implicitly or explicitly uphold the principle of non-refoulement, particularly concerning the right to family unity and protection from inhuman treatment, said Aman Kumar, a PhD candidate at the Australian National University who runs the Indian Blog of International Law. 'When you return female refugees back to Myanmar, or you separate children from their parents through deportations, you violate these treaties,' Kumar said. He noted that India had an 'extensive and wide record of accepting refugees as a state practice.' He pointed to asylum granted over the decades to tens of thousands of refugees from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tibet, in stark contrast to the current Indian government's hostility towards Rohingya refugees. Scrutiny of policy unlikely Internationally, India's 'pushback' policy is likely to attract scrutiny from United Nations agencies. On May 15, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Myanmar began an inquiry into alleged deportation of 40 Rohingya refugees from Delhi. The special rapporteur, Thomas Andrews, described these alleged acts as 'unconscionable' and 'unacceptable'. Many experts told Scroll that India is already receiving bad press on the issue internationally. However, direct action against India would face significant hurdles. If a country violates treaty obligations, action could be launched against it in the United Nations' International Court of Justice. But geopolitical realities often deter international action, Kumar said. 'India is too strategically important as a huge market and a potential alternative to China in the global supply chain,' he said. As a consequence, he does not foresee another country taking India to the International Court of Justice. In theory, Bangladesh – the country most affected by this policy – could start proceedings against India in the International Criminal Court, said Nair. 'Even though India is not a party to the International Criminal Court, Bangladesh is,' he said. 'A state party can bring a complaint against a non-state party before the court.' However, he said, that possibility was remote because Bangladesh is unlikely to want to aggravate India at a time of fraught relations between the two. Manchanda said that India may face some heat at the United Nations Human Rights Council's upcoming session on June 16. 'I expect that there will be statements made by civil society groups expressing outrage at what India is doing,' she said. She pointed out that in June 2024, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had called for India to refrain from forcibly detaining and deporting Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. But Manchanda said she was 'unsure about how much traction this would get.' Kumar did not believe the policy would be halted. 'Legally there is essentially nothing stopping India from continuing to carry out such deportations,' he said.
Hindustan Times
44 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Banke Bihari Corridor: Mathura admin draws up rehab scheme
: Amid the Goswamis' vocal opposition to the Banke Bihari Corridor plan, the Mathura district administration has come up with a scheme to rehabilitate the sevayats or servitors (the Goswami community members engaged in prayers and priestly duties) at the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan. The plan envisages accommodating the sevayats at Rukmani Vihar in Vrindavan. The Uttar Pradesh government's decision to form a trust to manage the Banke Bihari Temple and oversee the construction of the corridor has met with strong opposition from the Goswami community, the hereditary priests who have managed the temple for centuries. They view this as a government 'takeover' attempt, eroding their traditional authority and control over the temple's affairs. In the context of Hindu temples, sevayats are individuals or families who are responsible for performing various ritual services and duties related to the deity and the temple. Their position is hereditary. The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for the Banke Bihari Corridor, an ambitious plan to ease crowd congestion and enhance the pilgrimage experience around the shrine. The state government has brought an ordinance to create a Trust to run the temple and oversee work of the proposed corridor. After the recent visit of Awanish Kumar Awasthi, the special advisor to chief minister, to Vrindavan on June 6, the work for the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor has gathered pace. The Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority has selected land in Rukmani Vihar and Sunrakh Bangar for a residential scheme to rehabilitate 275 families to be affected by the Banke Bihari corridor, Mathura district magistrate Chandra Prakash Singh said on Wednesday. 'The work for the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor to enhance facilities for lakhs of devotees coming to the Banke Bihari Temple is attaining pace. Physical verification is being conducted for land measuring 5.5 acres required for the proposed corridor. Alongside this, we have drafted schemes to rehabilitate those to be affected by the corridor,' the Mathura DM said. 'The district administration will offer to settle the land owners affected by the corridor at Rukmani Vihar and Sunrakh Bangar in Vrindavan. The land has been selected and flats will be brought up in a residential scheme. The work is to be undertaken by Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority,' Singh said. 'The 275 land owners to be affected by acquisition of land for Banke Behari corridor include 200 shopkeepers. These shop owners will be allocated shops within the Banke Bihari corridor and compensation will be provided on the basis of land and shops being affected. Those affected by the corridor will be provided the option to settle in a common region for which a residential scheme has been worked out,' Chandra Prakash Singh said. Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority vice chairman Shyam Bahadur Singh said, 'We plan to construct 325 to 350 flats, both 1 BHK and 2 BHK, on four big plots at Rukmani Vihar Residential Scheme. If required, the number of flats will be increased by marking out adjoining land. Further, land measuring 3.5 acres has been selected at Sunrakh Bangar in Vrindavan.' 'Plots measuring 3924.91 square metres, 2844 square metres, 1800 square metres and 1504 square metres have been selected in Rukmani Vihar where 325 to 350 flats are to be developed under Group Housing Scheme having 1 BHK and 2 BHK flats,' he said. 'A design has been planned for flats to be constructed for affected families because of the corridor. Houses in Rukmani Vihar are on top priority,' said Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, secretary of MVDA. When asked about the proposal, Rajat Goswami, the former vice-president of the erstwhile managing committee at the Banke Bihari Temple (defunct after a court order), stated that the district administration has not communicated any such rehabilitation plan to them and they are not in position to react as of now. 'The district administration is in conversation with us on various aspects, but has not communicated any such plan in writing to us. The stakeholders should be taken into confidence before making such plans public,' Rajat Goswami said. Earlier, seeking a consensus on the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor project, Awasthi held meetings with local residents, traders and Goswamis (priests) in Vrindavan on June 6. On May 15, the Supreme Court paved the way for a state government scheme to develop the Banke Bihari Corridor for the benefit of devotees. The apex court also allowed the state government to use temple funds to purchase five-acre land for the corridor. The state government on May 27 constituted a Trust to manage the Banke Bihari temple and oversee the work of the proposed corridor.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Bribe for Bail' case: Court clerk withdraws pleas for anticipatory bail, quashing of FIR
A court ahlmad (clerk) accused of demanding bribes on behalf of a judicial officer withdrew his pleas from the Delhi High Court on Wednesday — one for anticipatory bail, and another for quashing of the FIR. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the pleas as withdrawn following the withdrawal request. The request comes on the heels of multiple hearings. Further, the Anti-Corruption Bureau(ACB), in its latest status report, indicated the possible involvement of the wife of the accused ahlmad, also a court staffer. On May 16, the ACB had lodged an FIR against the clerk under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court was then transferred on May 20. Subsequently, the ahlmad filed for anticipatory bail in a Rouse Avenue court, which had rejected the plea on May 22. During the bail hearing, the clerk had argued that the ACB had filed a 'false fabricated FIR' against him, contending that the enforcement agency had 'tried to frame' the Special Judge to 'settle a score with' him. Meanwhile, the prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that the clerk was a prime offender and was likely to tamper with evidence. It was also argued that a handwritten slip was allegedly provided by him to the complainant, which indicated his involvement in the alleged offence. The Indian Express on May 24 had reported that on January 29 this year, the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, seeking permission to initiate a probe against a Special Judge in the Rouse Avenue Court and his court's ahlmad over allegations of 'demand and acceptance of bribes for granting bail to accused persons.' The request, however, was passed on to the High Court. Even as the HC turned down the request on February 14, saying the ACB did not have 'sufficient material' against the Special Judge, it asked the ACB to continue its investigation. The judge was later transferred from Rouse Avenue Court to another court.
