The Congress party reiterated its commitment to resist any attempts to widen the scope of post-facto environmental clearances as it defends the core principles of environmental law. This statement came on Thursday, the day after the Supreme Court invalidated a 2021 office memorandum that allowed retrospective environmental clearances for projects lacking prior approval.
The Supreme Court emphasized that protective environmental frameworks cannot be modified through administrative orders. This ruling reaffirms the importance of following due diligence in environmental assessments, which is crucial for sustainable development.
Former Union Environment Minister and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh articulated the party’s stance. He referred to a significant judgment from May 2025, where a two-judge bench confirmed that prior environmental clearances are essential. Ramesh highlighted the detrimental impacts of the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum. He labeled these mechanisms as rewards for illegality that undermine the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
In his remarks on X (formerly Twitter), Ramesh noted, “These mechanisms violate the principles of sustainable development and the citizens’ right to a clean environment.” He also criticized the Centre’s arguments, which suggested that the judgment endangered several projects worth crores.
The dissenting opinion from Justice Ujjal Bhuyan echoed the Congress’s concerns, stressing that there is no provision for ex-post facto environmental clearance within established environmental law. He termed such approvals an ‘anathema’ to well-established environmental jurisprudence.
Ramesh praised the Supreme Court’s latest judgment, arguing that it sets a precedent prohibiting administrative instructions from overriding statutory EIA notifications. Yet, he expressed regret over the court’s allowance for the government to define ‘exceptional circumstances’ for post-facto environmental clearances.
Across India, communities resist recurring patterns where governments, in tandem with corporations, treat environmental laws as mere obstacles rather than essential regulations. From Great Nicobar to the Ken-Betwa river project and mining in Odisha, citizens stand against the dilution of hard-won environmental protections.
Ramesh pointed out that, “For 17 years, I have supported various campaigns opposing such dilutions. We will resolutely resist every attempt to expand post-facto environmental clearances, affirming our commitment to marginalized communities and sustainable development practices.”
A unanimous verdict by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant verified the prospective application of the ruling, thereby safeguarding projects that previously received retrospective environment clearances.
The Supreme Court also stated that the central government possesses the authority under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to craft legitimate notifications that could create amnesty schemes for specific classes of non-compliant projects.
This includes several significant projects, such as the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital in Odisha, a Centre of Excellence for Cancer Diseases in Tamil Nadu, and several irrigation projects designed for drought-affected areas. The bench noted, “We hold the 2021 Office Memorandum to be invalid and effectively quash it, taking into account the broader public interest involved with ongoing projects.”
During this legal discourse, the bench stressed the delicate balance between the need for a pollution-free environment and the right to development for a large population. They urged a careful examination from an eco-centric viewpoint, citing a Gandhian ideal: “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”
