Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | R.P.(C) No.-003002-003002 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 41929/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench |
|
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules: JUR (2025 INSC 1326) quashing the 2017 notification and 2021 SOP at large |
| Type of Law | Environmental law; interpretation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and related notifications |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court review held that the 2017 notification’s six-month window for non-compliant projects was a one-time amnesty; retrospective ECs beyond that date are legally impermissible. It reaffirmed that ex post facto EC is contrary to both the 1994 and 2006 EIA notifications, “anathema to environmental jurisprudence” and violative of the mandatory prior-clearance principle. Prior EC remains non-negotiable for pollution-intensive projects. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
2006 EIA notification mandated prior EC for listed projects; 2017 notification offered a six-month one-time window (extended by 30 days) for ex post facto EC; 2021 SOP elaborated appraisal steps; writ petitions challenged both; May 2025 judgment quashed them and barred ex post facto relief; review petition sought to recall that order to protect completed/near-complete projects and restore the prior-clearance rule. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; future two-Judge Benches of the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | JUR (2025 INSC 1326) quashing the 2017 notification and 2021 SOP |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The 2017 notification’s six-month compliance window was a one-time amnesty; applications beyond 13 April 2018 can no longer be regularized with EC.
- Ex post facto EC is “completely alien” to India’s EIA regime and runs counter to the precautionary principle and sustainable-development jurisprudence.
- A judicial promise on instructions that a notification is a one-time measure binds the executive, especially when made by learned law officers in open court.
- The Supreme Court may review and recall its own orders when they conflict with binding precedents of co-ordinate benches or set unsustainable regulatory backtracks.
- Practitioners can rely on this authority to defend pending EC applications filed within the statutory window and to counter belated regularization petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- 1994 and 2006 EIA notifications mandate prior environmental clearance for listed projects; no retrospective grant was contemplated.
- Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals firmly rejected any concept of ex post facto EC as alien to environmental jurisprudence.
- Later two-Judge bench decisions (Electrosteel, Pahwa, D. Swamy) allowed limited ex post facto relief in exceptional circumstances but conflicted with earlier binding precedents.
- Review invoked per incuriam exception: subsequent decisions ignoring or contradicting prior ratio decidendi of co-ordinate Benches are not binding.
- Reviewed judgment recalled, prioritizing the mandatory prior-clearance principle and limiting ex post facto relief to the original one-time window.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (CREDAI & applicants)
- Hundreds of projects initiated under the 2017 notification and 2021 SOP were near completion or fully built; quashing orders will force demolition and waste public funds.
- The 2017 notification was intended as a one-time window; executive statements bound future action.
- Later two-Judge benches adopted a balanced approach; review is necessary to protect legitimate expectations.
Respondents (vanashakti & environmental NGOs)
- Ex post facto EC undermines the mandatory prior-clearance regime and fundamental environmental principles.
- Allowing retrospective clearances beyond the window sets a dangerous precedent.
- Judicial discipline demands adherence to binding precedents (Common Cause, Alembic).
Factual Background
In 2006 India’s Environment Impact Assessment notification required prior clearance for certain projects. A 2017 notification offered a one-time six-month window (extended by 30 days) for projects in violation to seek ex post facto clearance. In 2021 MOEF&CC issued a SOP further easing retrospective EC. Writ petitions challenged both measures. A May 2025 Supreme Court judgment quashed them entirely, but a review petition argued this created chaos for near-complete public and private projects.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1) & (2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empower the Central Government to restrict or safeguard polluting activities.
- Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 supplements notification powers under Section 3.
- Section 15 & 19 of the EP Act prescribe penalties for contravention and empower pollution control boards to enforce clearance regimes.
- Section 21 General Clauses Act, 1897 allows amendment or rescission of notifications by the same authority.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Per incuriam exception: Subsequent Benches ignoring binding two-Judge Bench ratios can be overruled on review.
- Judicial discipline: Courts of co-ordinate strength must follow prior ratios unless referred to a larger Bench.
- Non-regression: Environmental law must not be rolled back; executive easements cannot override fundamental clearance norms.
Procedural Innovations
None identified beyond clarification of review scope and reaffirmation of per incuriam doctrine in environmental matters.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns the May 2025 judgment on ex post facto EC
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Common Cause (2017), Alembic Pharmaceuticals (2020)
- ⚖️ Split Verdict – 2:1