Why in News: On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court declared post-facto (retrospective) environmental clearances illegal, ruling that projects built without prior Environmental Clearance (EC) cannot later be legalised.
Background and Legal Context
1. Originates from S.P. Muthuraman vs Union of India (2013), when NGT stayed “prospective clearances”.
2. Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025) reaffirmed this, ending retrospective approvals.
3. Based on EIA Notification, 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
4. Does not clarify its applicability to Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), 2011, creating legal ambiguity.
5. The 12-year delay between NGT’s stance and Court’s confirmation led to policy vacuum and confusion.
Issues and Implications
1. No guidance for existing structures—States fear demolition of public and private projects.
2. Mass demolitions could worsen pollution and displace communities.
3. Ignores intent and scale of violations; applies “one-size-fits-all” rule.
4. Could extend to Air and Water Acts, risking closure of thousands of enterprises.
5. May push projects underground, weakening compliance and transparency.
Way Forward
1. Adopt a hybrid compliance model — penalise but permit corrective action.
2. Ban regularisation in eco-sensitive zones while allowing time-bound assessments elsewhere.
3. Impose fines, restoration duties, and independent monitoring.
4. Ensure clarity between EIA and CRZ regimes through stakeholder consultation.
5. Build a science-based, transparent environmental governance system balancing ecology and economy.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper II – Polity & Governance:
- Role of the Judiciary in environmental governance.
GS Paper III – Environment & Economy:
- Environmental impact assessment (EIA) framework and its limitations.
Mains Practice Question
Q1. The Supreme Court’s verdict banning post-facto environmental clearances has profound implications for India’s development model. Critically analyse its impact on environmental governance and infrastructure growth. (250 words)
