UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 19th May 2025

Home UPSC Current Affairs Supreme Court struck down the Centre’s orders on retrospective green clearances

Supreme Court struck down the Centre’s orders on retrospective green clearances

Why in News?

The Supreme Court struck down the 2017 MoEF&CC notification and 2021 SOP allowing post-facto environmental clearances, declaring them unconstitutional for violating the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.

Key Highlights

Recently, the Supreme Court of India struck down a 2017 notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which allowed post facto environmental clearances for industrial projects that had commenced operations without prior approval.
The Court also invalidated the 2021 office memorandum (OM) that institutionalized a standard operating procedure (SOP) for handling such cases.

Background:

The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, mandates prior environmental clearance before the commencement of any project with potential environmental impacts. The clearance involves multi-stage scrutiny, including:

Screening and scoping of the project
Impact assessment
Public hearing
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) recommendations

Despite this, in March 2017, the MoEF&CC issued a notification allowing a “one-time” six-month window for industries to obtain post facto clearance, even if they had already violated the EIA norms by beginning operations or modifying existing projects.

Rationale Behind the 2017 Notification:

Regulatory Compliance: The Centre argued that it was better to bring violators under the environmental regulatory net rather than leaving violations unregulated.
Remediation Costs: Violators would be compelled to pay for remediation and pollution damage, nullifying any economic advantage gained through non-compliance.
Centralized Appraisal: All violation cases, regardless of scale, were to be appraised centrally.
Closure Clause: Only activities permissible at the site would be allowed to proceed; others faced closure.

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declared:

The 2017 notification and 2021 OM are illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The right to a clean and pollution-free environment is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Post facto clearance undermines environmental law and encourages illegal project execution.
The Court restrained the Centre from issuing any future notifications or memoranda similar in intent or effect.

Violation of Judicial Precedents:

The Court cited two key judgments:

Common Cause v. Union of India (2017)
Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020)

Both judgments held that ex-post facto clearances are contrary to environmental jurisprudence and cannot be allowed as they defeat the preventive intent of EIA norms.

Criticism of the Centre's Approach:

The Court criticized the Centre for protecting violators instead of upholding environmental laws.
It noted that in the Alembic case, even a one-time amnesty was considered illegal.
The 2021 SOP, although not using the term post facto, was seen as an indirect attempt to regularize violations, which the Court found unacceptable.

Key Constitutional Principles Upheld:

Article 21: Right to life includes the right to a healthy environment.
Article 14: Equal treatment under law; violators cannot be treated at par with law-abiding project proponents.
Doctrine of Public Trust: The State has a duty to protect natural resources for present and future generations.

Implications of the Judgment:

Reinforces the principle of prior environmental clearance as a non-negotiable legal requirement.
Acts as a deterrent against regulatory bypass and upholds environmental governance.
Places greater responsibility on the MoEF&CC, State Authorities, and Pollution Control Boards to ensure compliance with EIA norms.
May affect projects that had earlier obtained post facto clearance between 2017–2021.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms India’s commitment to environmental protection and constitutional rights, rejecting a compliance regime that favours industrial interests at the cost of ecological integrity.
The judgment sets a landmark precedent in Indian environmental jurisprudence, ensuring that development does not override the fundamental right to a clean environment.