Supreme Court Allows Retrospective Environmental Clearances

• The Supreme Court has modified its earlier verdict in the Vanashakti case, allowing retrospective environmental clearances through a statutory notification.
• The Central Government can issue a valid statutory notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to grant post-facto environmental clearances.
• Clearances already granted will be protected, and projects can continue despite lack of prior environmental clearance.
• Compliance officers should review existing projects and assess potential exposure under this new ruling.

The Central Government can issue a valid statutory notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to grant post-facto environmental clearances.

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has modified its earlier verdict in the Vanashakti case, allowing the Central Government to grant retrospective environmental clearances through a statutory notification. The court's decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for ongoing and proposed projects that had commenced operations without prior environmental clearance. According to the judgment, the Central Government can issue a valid statutory notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to grant post-facto environmental clearances. This move has been seen as a relief for several industrial entities and public interest litigants who had argued that the original judgment was too stringent and did not account for specific circumstances where retrospective ECs may be permissible.

The Supreme Court's decision is rooted in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which governs environmental clearances for development projects. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is responsible for granting clearances for large-scale projects, while state-level authorities handle smaller projects. Environmental clearances are mandatory approvals required to ensure that projects do not harm the environment. The court's ruling also takes into account earlier judgments that had recognised limited situations where post-facto ECs may be permissible. In this context, the Supreme Court has clarified that its decision will have a prospective effect and clearances already granted under the impugned regime will be protected.

The Supreme Court's decision is significant because it allows projects to continue despite lack of prior environmental clearance. However, clearances already granted will be protected. This means that compliance officers should review existing projects and assess potential exposure under this new ruling. The court's decision also highlights the need for proportionality in enforcement, which was a key argument made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearing. The verdict is expected to have significant implications for ongoing and proposed projects, as well as for the environment and public interest.

Lawyers should note that the Supreme Court's decision may allow projects to continue despite lack of prior environmental clearance, but clearances already granted will be protected. Compliance officers should review existing projects and assess potential exposure under this new ruling.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court