Supreme Court ousted retrospective environmental purge

The Supreme Court granted the Center a factual or retrospective environmental clearance (EC) grant on Friday (May 16, 2025) to establish the project and build “serious illegality” and the court must drop heavily. |Picture source: Getty Images/Istock

The Supreme Court granted the Center a factual or retrospective environmental clearance (EC) grant on Friday (May 16, 2025) to establish the project and build “serious illegality” and the court must drop heavily.

The justices of Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan restricted the coalition government from passing on any form of facts to formalize illegal construction.

The court removed the Center’s 2017 Notice and 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), which actually acknowledged the post-event award and put the government’s notices, orders and notices as illegal and completely arbitrary.

However, the bench clarified that the EC and 2021 OM awarded so far as 2017 notice will not be affected by the judgment.

The court accused the Centre of “Crazy Drafting” of clearing illegal constructs through retrospective ECs, saying the government only protected project supporters who committed serious illegality by starting to build or operate in these illegal constructs without having to obtain prior ECs.

“The EC must be obtained before a new project or an existing project is carried out…the concept of post-event EC is a disgusting of the fundamental principles of environmental law and is a disgusting of the EIA notice of January 27, 1994.”

The verdict said that despite the explicit announcement of the law explicitly proclaiming the law against the Supreme Court in its common cause judgment in the same year, the government has issued a 2017 notice.

“The difference between retrospective EC or post-verything licensing and environmental jurisprudence is that the statutory notice deserves careful application of ideas prior to the issuance of EC, in addition to the study of the possible consequences of the proposed activity on the environment,” explains Oka.

Granting the effect after post-clearing will allow the completion of the project without prior EC. If construction has been completed and activities have begun, a retrospective EC will help to continue.

Therefore, in fact, facts prove that the rules of facts are illegal and have a retrospective effect.

The court refers to the 2021 OM when it said that the union government “skilledly” avoided the term “after the matter”, but the role of these provisions is to allow for a retrospective regime.

“2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can development be carried out at the cost of the environment? Environmental protection and its improvements are an important part of the concept of development. Therefore, measures to protect those who cause damage to the environment by issuing such OMS must be devalued by the courts…even the central government must protect and improve the natural environment.