SC order on retrospective environmental clearances a step forward but gaps remain: Experts
Policy experts on Saturday welcomed the
Supreme Court
's decision barring the government from granting retrospective environmental clearances but warned that loopholes in environmental laws still exist, and citizens must stay alert to protect their constitutional rights. In a landmark ruling on Friday, the apex court said the government cannot grant retrospective environmental clearances in the future.
The court made it clear that projects started without mandatory prior
environmental clearance
cannot be legalised later. It added that violators who knowingly ignored the law cannot be protected.
The judgement came in response to petitions filed by the NGO Vanashakti and others, challenging two government office memorandums issued in July 2021 and January 2022 which had created a system to grant environmental clearance to projects that began operations without prior approval under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
Stalin D, Director of Vanashakti, told PTI that citizens must now ensure the court's directions are followed.
"The judgement clearly says the government cannot try and provide a safe haven for violators. So, we have to ensure that our constitutional framework is not violated in any way."
Live Events
"One more very pertinent thing in that order is that the people who violated this are not illiterate persons. They are educated, well connected, rich people who knew that they were engaging in a violation, which needs to stop now," he said.
Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, said while it is a good order, knowing the history of environment ministry and project proponents, they will find a way around.
She said post-facto approvals mean the damage is already done before clearance is granted.
"Will these stop and the ministry obey the SC orders? Let's wait and watch Though knowing the record of MoEFCC, they give two hoots for SC orders and may blatantly disregard them," she added.
Himanshu Thakkar, Coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, said the decision is welcome but should have come earlier. He also raised concerns about enforcement.
"This is welcome, but the directions could have come sooner. It shows that our system is very slow to react."
"Secondly, where is your credible monitoring system to ensure that this doesn't happen? The third thing is there is a bypassing of the law happening. For example, land acquisition is allowed, even when environment clearance is not there. If you have already acquired land, you are creating impacts, displacing people, you are making the project fait accompli," Thakkar said.
"So, the Supreme Court also needs to put down more stipulations that you cannot acquire land without environmental clearance because once you acquire the land, then you get the right over the land and you can do what you want to do with it, which is again movement towards irreversibility. So, these kinds of loopholes are still there," he said.
Debadityo Sinha, Lead - Climate and Ecosystems at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said the very purpose of the EIA process is to evaluate alternatives, assess environmental and social impacts and enable public consultation before any project receives approval. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures development does not come at the cost of ecological integrity."
"Granting post-facto Environmental Clearance undermines this entire framework, allowing projects to bypass due diligence and legal scrutiny. It effectively opens the floodgates for unsustainable, poorly planned developments, often in ecologically sensitive areas, where such projects would never have passed scrutiny in the first place. This not only sets a dangerous precedent but incentivises illegal construction in the hope of regularisation through backdoor clearances," he said.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at law firm KS Legal and Associates, said the Supreme Court's decision may shake up the existing system but is not a cure-all.
"By killing ex post facto approvals, it puts companies on notice that you start without clearance and you are gambling with your entire project with no retroactive bailouts. Smaller firms, less equipped for legal warfare, might fall in line, seeking clearances upfront to avoid ruin. Activists and communities gain a stronger edge to hold violators accountable, as courts now have a clearer mandate to reject post-facto fixes," she said.
Guman Singh, Coordinator of Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, said they had opposed the government's move to allow retrospective environmental clearances.
He said the Supreme Court's decision clearly reinforces that environmental laws cannot be diluted to legalise illegal projects and promotes ecological accountability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Justice Oka highlights the interconnection between environmental justice and social justice at Climate Change Conference
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S Oka on Thursday said that environmental justice , as developed by India's constitutional courts, is deeply intertwined with the idea of social justice 'It is my privilege to address this gathering on a very important subject, the environment, which is dear to me. As a judge of the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Supreme Court, I was lucky enough to deal with many environmental matters,' Justice Oka said at the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) Climate Change Conference and Awards emphasized that environmental issues go beyond preserving nature and have direct consequences on the lives and health of human beings.'When we talk about environmental justice, social justice inevitably comes into the picture. Protection of the environment is not only necessary for preserving natural resources available on planet Earth, but more importantly, it is essential for human beings to lead a healthy, constructive, and meaningful life. If we are not able to preserve our environment and protect it from degradation, we are doing an injustice to society at large,' he gave Delhi's recurring winter air pollution crisis as an example of inequality in environmental access.'That is where social justice comes into the picture. One classic example is Delhi. Every year, from December to February, we are hit by massive air pollution. Most of the people present here today can afford air purifiers at home, but the majority of Delhi's population living in shanties or working on the streets can't afford air purifiers.'Justice Oka stressed that constitutional guarantees of social justice must include environmental protection, citing how pollution affects livelihoods, particularly among vulnerable communities like fishermen.'Take, for example, pollution of our rivers or our seas affects the livelihood of the fishing community. Thus, every environmental issue, every degradation, every destruction of the environment has a direct nexus with social justice guaranteed by the Constitution.'He highlighted that environmental degradation also affects economic justice and the national economy, disproportionately impacting the poor. He reaffirmed the significance of legal doctrines such as sustainable development and the polluter pays principle , developed by courts to safeguard environmental also questioned the country's definition of development: whether it should be limited to infrastructure like highways and flyovers, or be reoriented toward providing essentials to the poor. He warned that the current path would render sustainable development from over four decades of legal experience, he observed that very few citizens engage with environmental concerns seriously, and those who do are often labeled as anti-development.'I have been part of several environmental decisions in the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, and the Supreme Court. What I find from my long experience of 20 years as a lawyer and nearly 22 years as a judge of three constitutional courts is that very few citizens show enthusiasm and courage to take up environmental issues. It is not easy to address environmental concerns, as those who raise these issues rarely get active societal support.'He added that environmental defenders are often misunderstood and vilified for standing against damaging practices.'Those advocating environmental causes rarely received societal support, and in such a case, how could they expect to receive support from the government?'Referring to the landmark MC Mehta case, Justice Oka said the Supreme Court's directions laid the foundation for environmental jurisprudence, but questioned if society has truly honored those who led the charge.'Have we adequately honoured or remembered him (Mehta, who filed the PIL), especially today, as we celebrate World Environment Day?'He also reflected on his past work addressing noise pollution caused by illegal loudspeaker use during festivals.'Noise pollution caused by religious festivals affects human health seriously. Everyone has a constitutional right not to be compelled to hear what they don't wish to, yet illegal use of loudspeakers continues, forcing people to endure unwanted noise. Noise pollution isn't just irritating, it impacts hearing capacity and brain functioning.'Justice Oka concluded with a call for humility and awareness, emphasizing that humanity is a part of nature—not its owner.'We degrade and destroy the environment under the wrong notion that the earth belongs to us, but in fact, we belong to the earth. Some of us are under the wrong notion that the environment belongs to us. In fact, we belong to the environment.'Quoting Article 21 of the Constitution, he reminded that the right to dignity includes the right to live in a clean, pollution-free environment.'If you are living in an atmosphere polluted by air and other forms of pollution, you cannot live with dignity. Protecting the environment, including the manmade and natural environments, is of great concern for human existence.'[Inputs from PTI]
United News of India
19 minutes ago
- United News of India
SILF Climate Change Conference 2025 honours Justice Abhay S. Oka with Sustainability Award
New Delhi, June 5 (UNI) In a stirring convergence of law and environmental consciousness, the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) hosted the SILF Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 in New Delhi on World Environment Day, recognising the Indian judiciary's unwavering role in protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development. The event was graced by Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as Chief Guest, and Justice Jasmeet Singh, Judge of the Delhi High Court, as Guest of Honour. The highlight of the ceremony was the presentation of the SILF Sustainability Award 2025 to Justice Abhay S. Oka, former Supreme Court Judge, for his extraordinary contributions to environmental jurisprudence in India. Delivering a powerful keynote, Justice Oka stated, 'Environmental justice cannot be separated from social and economic justice. Pollution and environmental degradation hurt the most vulnerable the hardest, affecting their dignity and the basic rights under Article 21 of our Constitution.' He lamented the lack of recognition for environmental activists and emphasised the need to translate judicial principles into action. 'On World Environment Day, we must honour the unsung heroes of environmental protection and turn our ideals into tangible action,' he added. Justice Jasmeet Singh stressed the urgency of the climate crisis and the judiciary's pivotal role: 'The crisis we face today is a consequence of unsustainable development. But landmark judgments like M.C. Mehta prove that environmental conservation and progress must coexist.' He urged society to embrace sustainability as a path to innovation and collective prosperity, not merely a challenge. 'It is through collective effort that climate change can become a catalyst for resilient growth,' he said. "We Belong to Mother Earth": Justice Sanjay Karol Justice Sanjay Karol made an emotional plea for grassroots environmental action: 'We must stop viewing climate change as a problem to be solved later. It is a climate emergency now. The courts have done their part, now every citizen must rise to the occasion.' He dismissed the notion that judicial activism hinders economic growth, asserting that both can progress in harmony to achieve constitutional goals of sustainability. Dr. Lalit Bhasin, President of SILF and Chairman of the CII National Committee on Legal Services, applauded the judiciary's role. He said, 'The judgments of our courts have sown seeds of environmental accountability in India's governance landscape. These precedents are now the guiding light for lawmakers, regulators, and businesses alike.' The Awards Ceremony honoured key individuals and organisations for championing sustainability, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Retired Supreme Court Judge, Dr. Bina Modi, Chairperson, Modi Enterprises, Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate, Prof. (Dr.) S. Shanthakumar, VC, Gujarat National Law University, Rajesh Jha, Regional Legal Director, South Asia, Reckitt India, Sharad Aggarwal, CEO, Godfrey Phillips India, Additionally, Plaques of Honour were presented to Justice Karol and Justice Jasmeet Singh for their sustained commitment to environmental justice. Engaging Panel Discussions on Judicial Responsibility, Two thematic panels 'Courts as Saviours of Clean Air, Trees, Rivers, Forests, and Climate in India' and 'Role of Judiciary in Balancing Economic Development and Sustainability'/featured rich dialogues by experts on how India's legal framework must evolve to address the country's ecological challenges. The SILF Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 reaffirmed that law and climate responsibility are inextricably linked and that India's legal fraternity must remain at the forefront of environmental stewardship. UNI SNG RN
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
US Supreme Court sides with straight woman in discrimination case — DEI backlash incoming?
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson wrote. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's 'largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.' Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans." Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. But Jackson wrote that 'this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
