&w=3840&q=100)
SC bars govt from giving post-facto environmental clearance for projects
The Supreme Court has restrained the Centre from granting ex-post facto environmental clearance to mining and other development projects or regularising actions that contravene the 2006 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification.
The EIA notification 2006 was designed to ensure that developmental projects are assessed for their potential environmental impacts before approval. Ex-post facto clearance refers to the granting of approval or ratification of an action after it has already been completed.
The apex on Friday court ruled that the 'conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development'.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan struck down the ex-post facto environmental clearance (EC) regime under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The court held that the 2017 notification and the 2021 office memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Under the EIA Notification, 2006, prior environmental clearance is mandatory for certain categories of industrial and infrastructure projects. However, the MoEFCC issued a notification in 2017 allowing entities to apply for ex-post facto ECs. Further, in 2021, the ministry issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) via an OM. This SOP allowed for conditional clearance of ongoing or completed projects that had bypassed prior EC requirements.
These measures were challenged by environmental groups and civil society organisations, including the petitioner in this case, Vanashakti. The court held that the grant of ex-post facto clearance was not permitted under the 2017 notification for the projects and activities which were commenced or continued after March 14, 2017. It further said that the window, which was initially for six months, was eventually extended till completion of 30 days from March 14, 2018.
Therefore, the 2021 OM is brought in to do something which was not permissible under the 2017 notification, the law laid down by this court, and the solemn undertaking given by the central government to the Madras High Court, the court said.
'We must deprecate such effort on the part of the central government,' the court held.
The court said the concept of ex-post facto EC is alien to Indian environmental law and contrary to earlier rulings (Common Cause v. Union of India, Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati).
The court said even the central government must protect and improve the natural environment.
'Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment 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. In fact, the courts should come down heavily on such attempts,' the order said.
Granting EC retrospectively undermines the precautionary principle and defeats the very purpose of environmental assessments, the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
44 minutes ago
- The Print
Uddhav insulted Raj, says Nitesh Rane; claims ‘Ladha Aapalya Shivsenesathi' meant for Aaditya
'Uddhav Thackeray consistently insulted Raj Thackeray and forced him to leave the party. Raj was always seen as inheritor of the legacy of late Balasaheb Thackeray. That is why senior leaders of both Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS are disturbed, They know what had happened. I am not against the family reuniting, but how can one forget the insults heaped on Raj,' Rane claimed. Speaking to reporters in Solapur, Rane, a BJP MLA, also said Uddhav Thackeray must admit the 'Ladha Aapalya Shivsenesathi' (fight for your Shiv Sena) was meant to promote his son and former minister Aaditya Thackeray. Speaking about the 'Ladha Aapalya Shivsenesathi' campaign launched by the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena, Rane said, 'It seems this campaign is chiefly for Aaditya Thackeray. Uddhav Thackeray should openly admit it. This campaign is not for the Shiv Sena.' Rane also said the first draft of the Constitution prepared by Babasaheb Ambedkar did not contain the word 'secular'. It was later inserted by the Congress, he claimed. PTI ND BNM This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Print
44 minutes ago
- The Print
Granting interim bail to Sharmishta Panoli, HC directs West Bengal cops to give her protection
She later deleted the video and issued an apology on 15 May, but the Kolkata Police took her into custody, saying she and her family 'absconded,' and attempts to serve notices to appear for questioning were not successful. On Saturday, Sharmishta was produced before the Alipore Court in Kolkata, which remanded her in judicial custody for 14 days. Panoli was arrested by Kolkata police from Gurugram, Haryana, last week in connection with an FIR filed at Kolkata's Garden Reach police station over an Instagram video on Operation Sindoor in which she allegedly made controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammed. New Delhi: Calcutta High Court Thursday granted interim bail to 22-year-old law student and influencer Sharmishta Panoli. The court directed Panoli to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 while instructing the police to provide her with protection if she faces any threats. The arrest had triggered a political fallout with leaders from both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress accusing the West Bengal police and the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) of overreach and stifling freedom of speech. Before the court directed the state police to ensure her safety if she were to face any potential threats, Advocate General Kishore Datta, representing the state, argued in front of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury that Panoli evaded police and was arrested outside West Bengal; hence, regular bail had not been granted earlier, reported Live Law. The state contended that the appropriate course of action was to apply for regular bail, not to move the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In response, the high court sought details of the FIR from the case diary. The Advocate General contended that Panoli's remarks led to public disturbances and also urged that the case be transferred to a regular bench. At this point, the judge noted that simply because a different judge was hearing the matter did not invalidate prior observations by a coordinated bench. Challenging the state's argument, Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, appearing for Panoli, argued that the arrest was improper as no prior notice had been served. He said Panoli had approached the high court instead of seeking regular bail because her fundamental rights were at stake. Drawing comparisons with the Supreme Court's grant of interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad on 21 May in an FIR lodged by Haryana Police over his social media post on 'Operation Sindoor', Singh argued that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence, submitting that 'blasphemy is not part of Indian law'. He also argued that Panoli had deleted the controversial video the very next day and issued an apology. The court took into account that her college details were revealed in the complaint, which allegedly led to threats against her. Considering these factors, the court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary any longer and granted Panoli interim bail. This is an updated version of the report (Edited by Amrtansh Arora) Also Read: Sharmishta Panoli arrest brings Congress's Karti, BJP's Suvendu on same page; Dutch MP also chimes in
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will Trump get to pick US Supreme Court justices in his second term?
Legal experts suggest that Donald Trump may have the opportunity to appoint additional Supreme Court justices during a potential second term, potentially reshaping the court's direction for decades. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts may face pressure to retire, allowing Trump to install younger, like-minded individuals. Experts have said Trump might appoint loyalist justice. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Can Trump overhaul judiciary? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Can Trump pick judges? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Trump may seek loyalty over ideology During his first term in office, President Donald Trump appointed 226 federal court judges, including three US Supreme Court justices. Trump successfully installed judges who promoted his political agenda, including overturning the landmark ruling from 1973 that declared the Constitution guaranteed the right to abortion, Roe v. something unusual appears to be unfolding in his second term. Rather than reinforcing Trump-era policies, federal judges — even those appointed by Trump himself — are now halting key parts of the president's second-term initiatives. So, a question that keeps popping up on everyone's mind is that- Will Donald Trump appoint Supreme Court judges in the US?Trump may have the opportunity to appoint new Supreme Court justices during his second term in office, legal experts told Newsweek. During his first term in office, Trump appointed three justices to the US Supreme Court, thus significantly influencing the judiciary system. Trump may have another chance to nominate a justice in the coming years- —an appointment that could shape the Court's direction for decades. Such a move would likely have profound effects on public policy, particularly in areas like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and executive Justices Clarence Thomas (76), Samuel Alito (75), and Chief Justice John Roberts (70) are already facing calls from some on the right to consider retirement in the coming years. With Republicans currently holding control of the presidency and a 53-seat majority in the Senate, they are in a strong position to confirm new Supreme Court justices without Democratic argue that Republicans should take a lesson from Democrats, who have previously faced setbacks when their justices chose not to retire during favorable political Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that while it's impossible to predict exactly when a justice might step down, Justices Alito and Thomas are the most likely candidates for retirement—primarily to allow a like-minded successor to be appointed. However, he noted that this isn't a certainty, as both justices are now part of the majority after spending years as dissenting voices on the Court, a position they deeply from the right may not be convincing to the justices, he said."Judges and especially Justices are very independent, and I don't think they will be too influenced by the pressure campaign," he said. "It's ultimately a very personal decision and the Ginsburg example is important but she was older and faced more health issues than the current justices."None of the current justices on the court have publicly said they plan to retire anytime federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek Thomas could wait until after the 2026 midterms to avoid giving Democrats a motivating issue ahead of the elections."However, if that happens, President Trump will pick a very young and conservative nominee because in his mind, he got burned with Justice Barrett," he said. "And he wants to put his further imprint on the tenor of the High Court."Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek: "It's likely Trump appoints at least one Supreme Court Justice, and maybe two. The odds increase over his four-year term, especially with Justices Thomas and Alito being in their mid-70s.""Trump's Cabinet and officer appointees during his second term have been largely loyalists without the experience or independent streaks that frustrated him during his first term. His Supreme Court appointment(s) will likely reflect those same values, especially given the importance of the judiciary in standing in the way of his executive orders."Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University, told Newsweek, "It's uncertain whether Trump will have another Supreme Court vacancy. But there's a good chance conservatives will begin urging Roberts, Thomas, and Alito to retire after this term so Trump could install younger, like-minded justices.'Legal analysts believe Trump may prioritize personal loyalty over ideological alignment when choosing future Supreme Court McQuade, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek that frustration with decisions made by Justices Barrett and Roberts may drive Trump to look for candidates who are not only conservative but personally loyal to him."Trump could seek justices who won't break from him on major rulings," McQuade said. "That could have a major impact on upcoming cases dealing with birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare, and the limits of executive power."Justice Amy Coney Barrett has occasionally sided against Trump's positions, including a ruling against deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Her independent stance has drawn criticism from Trump-aligned analyst Urman agreed that loyalty may guide Trump's future selections, noting that he 'appears to value loyalty above all else in his nominees.' Any new appointments, Urman added, would likely align more closely with the judicial philosophies of Justices Thomas or Alito than Barrett.
