Supreme Court Set to Review May 16 Verdict on Retrospective Environmental Clearances

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a judgment regarding petitions challenging its May 16 ruling that prohibited retrospective environmental clearances for projects violating norms. This decision emphasises the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment.

The Supreme Court is set to announce its decision on Tuesday regarding 40 petitions. These petitions seek changes and a review of the court's May 16 ruling, which nullified the government's decision to grant retrospective clearances to projects violating environmental norms. The original verdict was delivered by a bench including Justice A S Oka, who has since retired, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

The May 16 judgement prohibited the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) from granting retrospective environmental clearances to projects that breached environmental regulations. Justice Oka, who authored the judgement, emphasised that living in a pollution-free environment is a fundamental right. This decision affected numerous ongoing and completed projects, including those in infrastructure, mining, and industry.

Review Petitions and Legal Arguments

On October 9, Chief Justice B R Gavai, along with Justices Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran, heard arguments from senior advocates. These included Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. They represented various industrial entities and government bodies advocating for a review or modification of the contested judgement.

In contrast, senior advocates such as Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sanjay Parikh, and Anand Grover strongly opposed revisiting the judgement. They argued that the court should not support actions that encourage lawlessness. The review petitions are vital for several projects at risk of closure or demolition due to the May 16 verdict.

Impact on Environmental Regulations

The contested verdict stated that ex post facto environmental clearances granted under the 2017 notification and the 2021 office memorandum would not be disturbed at this stage. However, the bench declared the 2021 office memorandum and related circulars as arbitrary and illegal. They were found contrary to the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.

This ruling has significant implications for projects that had received post-facto clearances. It underscores the importance of adhering to environmental laws and regulations from the outset. The outcome of these review petitions will determine whether these projects can continue or face potential closure.

The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision will have far-reaching consequences for environmental governance in India. It will clarify whether retrospective clearances can be granted in cases where projects have violated environmental norms. The ruling will also impact how future projects approach compliance with environmental regulations.

With inputs from PTI