Description

Disclaimer: Copyright infringement not intended.

Context

Environmental governance in India is centered on the principle of prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

However the Ministry of Environment introduced ex-post facto clearances in 2017 allowing projects that began without EC to be regularised retrospectively.

In May 2025 the Supreme Court struck down this amnesty mechanism as illegal and against environmental jurisprudence.

Background of Environmental Amnesty

Year	Development
2017	Notification allowed one-time amnesty for projects started without prior EC.
2021	MoEFCC issued a Standard Operating Procedure through an Office Memorandum making the amnesty routine.
2024 (Jan)	Supreme Court stayed the 2021 OM but permitted consideration of EC modification requests granted before July 2021.
2025 (May 17)	Supreme Court struck down both 2017 notification and 2021 OM, calling them illegal and against the polluter pays principle.

Projects that Benefited Before SC Struck Down the Amnesty

Statistics

112 projects recommended by Expert Appraisal Committee from 2017 to 2021.

55 projects were granted post-facto EC.

150+ projects received Terms of Reference.

Beneficiary Sectors

Mining (coal, iron, bauxite)

Greenfield airports

Cement and steel plants

Chemical industries

Hospitals and Hotels

Real estate and commercial complexes

Notable Beneficiaries

Singareni Collieries, Mahanadi Coalfields, UltraTech Cement, Tata Steel, Hindustan Copper, Hotel Leela Venture, Godrej Agrovet, Artemis Hospital, etc.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Judgment

The object of the 2017 notification and 2021 OM was to protect violators not the environment.

Ex-post facto ECs violate the EIA 2006 and the principle of prior approval.

Prior EC is a precondition for sustainable development.

Cited previous SC judgments:

Common Cause v. Union of India (2017)

Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020)

Declared all circulars, notifications and OMs based on 2017 and 2021 orders as void ab initio.

Reaffirmed that development cannot come at the cost of environment.

Government’s Defense

Argued it was pragmatic and based on polluter pays principle.

Claimed no existing mechanism to deal with violation cases.

Warned that demolition of such projects could lead to additional environmental damage.

Implications of the Judgment

Positive Implications

Strengthens rule of law in environmental governance.

Reinforces the importance of prior EC and public accountability.

May prevent reckless industrialization and ensure ecological sustainability.

Concerns

Projects already approved might now be subject to litigation or closure.

Possibility of review petition by MoEFCC.

Could lead to a temporary regulatory vacuum for dealing with violations.

Way Forward

Recommendation	Explanation
Codify violation procedures	Create legal provisions under the Environment Protection Act for handling violations, without compromising on due diligence.
Stronger EIAs	Ensure transparent, rigorous and participatory environmental assessments.
Digital Monitoring	Use GIS and remote sensing for real-time project compliance.
Capacity Building	Strengthen EACs and SEIAAs with experts to deal with complex ecological impacts.
Public Disclosure	Mandate disclosure of all post-facto ECs granted and reasons.

Sources:

INDIANEXPRESS

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. The Supreme Court’s verdict striking down ex-post facto environmental clearances underscores the principle that development cannot come at the cost of legality and sustainability. Critically examine the implications of this judgment. 250 Words.