SC resumes final hearing on pleas related to retrospective environmental clearances

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday resumed its final hearing on a batch of pleas, including review petitions, challenging its Vanashakti verdict permitting grant of retrospective environmental clearance (EC) by the Centre and other authorities to projects found violating green norms on payment of heavy penalties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi heard senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who mounted a strong challenge to the legality of retrospective ECs granted to projects found in violation of environmental norms.

Sankaranarayanan contended that a “blanket” regime allowing post-facto approvals violates Article 14 of the Constitution and runs contrary to the statutory framework requiring prior scrutiny.

He said that environmental law mandates a structured application of mind before granting clearances, not after violations have already occurred. “The concept of ex post facto clearance was always meant to be narrowly tailored,” he submitted, referring to the Centre’s 2017 notification that allowed a limited six-month window for violators to seek regularisation.

According to him, this was a one-time “amnesty” measure, applicable only to projects operational without clearance at the time and which was valid till April 2018.

“The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) cannot become a backdoor entry,” he said, adding that the framework is being misused beyond its intended scope.

He warned that the environmental impact of such approvals is “massive” and, in many cases, “irreversible,” particularly in ecologically sensitive areas dependent on water resources, biodiversity and air quality.

Highlighting the human cost of infrastructure expansion, Sankaranarayanan pointed to highway projects as an example, noting the lack of inclusive planning for non-motorised transport and rural communities.

“There are many sacrifices which are uncounted, untold and unenumerated,” he said, urging the court to strike down the impugned notifications.

Petitioners have argued that such post-facto approvals dilute environmental safeguards and incentivise violations.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will resume on Tuesday. On February 25, the top court resumed hearing on the pleas.

On November 18 last year, a three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai reversed by a majority of 2:1 its own verdict by an interim order and paved the way for retrospective environmental clearance to projects found violating environmental norms, saying that otherwise “thousands of crores of rupees would go in waste”.

The top court had held that numerous vital public projects constructed with nearly Rs 20,000 crore of the public exchequer money would be demolished if the May 16, 2025, verdict, which barred the Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearance to projects, was not recalled.

It had ordered a fresh hearing on the pleas.

The CJI-led bench has heard a battery of lawyers, including senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Sanjay Parikh who are opposed to the grant of retrospective EC to the projects violating green norms.

Shankarnarayan had argued that the current legal framework for retrospective clearance is flawed and lacks statutory backing. He highlighted that the 2017 notification, which allowed a one-time six-month window for violators to apply for EC, was a “protem measure” that expired in April 2018.

Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, also appearing for the petitioners, raised broader constitutional concerns.

Earlier, the bench had observed that as the highest court of the country, the endeavour should be to minimise the scope of committing any mistake which may have a far-reaching effect on the development and growth of the nation.

The top court’s Vanashakti ruling in May 2025 had barred the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and the authorities concerned from granting retrospective environmental clearances to projects which are found in violation of environmental norms.