SC nixes retrospective green nods, but loophole still open

Hindustan Times

3 days ago

The Supreme Court on May 16, in the Vanashakti Vs Union of India case, struck down two of the Union government's office memoranda (OMs) and a notification that allowed retrospective environmental clearances to projects that began construction without prior approval -- but experts point out that retrospective forest clearances (which are very common) do almost the same damage.
For example, the minutes of the latest Forest Advisory Committee meeting, held on April 15, available on Parivesh website, has several cases of ex post facto forest clearances considered by the Committee. These include: ex post facto clearance for regularisation of diversion of 11.562 ha of forest land for establishment of Integrated Steel Plant in Odisha; a similar clearance for diversion of 0.8935 ha reserved forest land for construction of a substation and electrification of 33 KV transmission line through Melghat Tiger Reserve; and approval for diversion of forest land for setting up of mobile towers in parts of Kashmir.
FAC has provisions to penalise the violators who seek ex post facto clearance. For example, in the case of the steel plant in Odisha in which construction on the embankment and construction of a boundary wall had already taken place, FAC imposed a penalty for violation which is equal to net present value (NPV) of forest land per hectare for each year of violation from the date of actual diversion as reported by the inspecting officer with maximum up to five (5) times the NPV plus 12% simple interest from the date of raising of such demand till the deposit is made. NPV is the valuation or cost of forests diverted determined based on ecological role and value of forests which is graded based on quality and type of forests.
The project proponent shall maintain/develop the green belts within the project area(wherever feasible) in consultation with the state forest department, the minutes dated April 16 added.
HT reported on January 6 that FAC has granted post-facto approval for a Commando Battalion Camp in Assam's protected forest area, while simultaneously levying a penalty for violations of forest conservation laws.
The approval pertained to the diversion of 26.1 hectares within the Geleky Reserved Forest, along the volatile Assam-Nagaland border in Sivasagar forest division and diversion of 11.5 ha of forest land in favour of Assam Police Housing Corporation for establishment of a second Commando Battalion Camp at Damchera. The case has a controversial history. Hindustan Times first reported on April 25 that MK Yadava, then Assam's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (now special secretary, forests, Assam) approved these two major forest diversions for police installations without prior forest clearance.
'Such regularisations stem from a 2018 guideline issued to states and UTs on activities which constitute violations of provisions of Forest Conservation Act 1980 and rules made thereof regarding common guideline to be followed by FAC/regional committees while considering such violations. The 2018 guideline laid down a graded approach depending on the violations. But the question is whether penalties prescribed or directed by Centre are a deterrent or not. Considering the number of such instances, it does not seem so,' said a legal expert who did not wish to be named.
The Handbook on Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications issued under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980 also has details of how ex post facto forest clearances should be dealt with.
'Proposals seeking ex-post-facto approval of the Central Government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 are normally not to be entertained. The Central Government will not accord approval under the Act unless under exceptional circumstances that may justify the case,' it states.
In case of public utility projects of the government, the penalty s is 20 % of the general NPV penalty. State government will initiate disciplinary action against the official concerned for not being able to prevent use of forest land for non-forestry purpose without prior approval of Centre etc, the 2018 guidelines state.
'But it is important to remember that the Forest Conservation Act 1980 only allows prior forest clearance. There is no provision for ex post facto clearances. Only the guidelines make way for it. But, once a forest area is cleared and a project has started construction, the damage is already done,' he added.
On May 21, Debadityo Sinha, Managing Trustee, Vindhyan Ecology & Natural History Foundation, also a legal researcher sent a representation to union environment ministry about an Office Memorandum dated March 29, 2022 (not covered by Vanashakti judgement) which allows for fencing of the project site by boundary wall using civil construction, barbed wire or precast/ prefabricated components ; construction of temporary sheds using pre-fabricated / modular structure, for site office/guards and storing material and machinery ; and provision of temporary electricity and water supply for site office/guards only.
Sinha has said the 2022 OM is inconsistent with the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Notification, 2006 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and with the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vanashakti Vs Union of India case dated May 16.
'It is important to note that permitting these construction activities—whether permanent or temporary—without an environmental clearance (EC) leads to a change in land use and alters the physical and ecological conditions of the site, before any EIA studies have been conducted,' Sinha wrote to MoEFCC.
Provisions of ex post facto clearances are however extremely important to the industry. Office bearers of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries expect the government to seek a review of the Supreme Court's judgement.
'We feel the government should file a review petition on the judgement. This is because the judgement will impact small mines and livelihoods of people in tribal areas,' said BK Bhatia, director general, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI).
The Union environment ministry did not respond to a query on the court's judgment and whether there will be curbs on retrospective forest clearances. But, on May 26, the government issued an office memorandum stating, 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 16.05.2025, in W.P. 1394/2023 titled Vanashakti vs. Union of India and connected matters...has struck down the above mentioned Notification S.O. 804(E) dated 14/03/2017 and SoP dated 07/07/2021. The copy of the order which is self-explanatory is enclosed herewith for compliance.'