The Congress party has pledged unwavering opposition to any attempts aimed at broadening the scope of post-facto environmental clearances. The declaration comes after a Supreme Court ruling reinforced the necessity of prior environmental approvals.
The focal point of the Congress’s stance emerged on Thursday, a day following a significant Supreme Court ruling that quashed a 2021 office memorandum allowing retrospective clearances for projects initiated without the necessary environmental nod.
Jairam Ramesh, Congress leader and former environment minister, emphasized the party’s commitment to defending the core principles of environmental law. He stated, “In May 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a milestone judgment affirming that prior environmental clearance is mandatory.”
Ramesh asserted that the earlier office memorandum and the 2017 Notification had rewarded illegality, undermined the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and violated sustainable development principles.
“The Union Government sought a review, arguing that this judgment could disrupt numerous projects worth crores that commenced without prior clearances,” Ramesh noted. He expressed concern over a three-judge bench reviewing the landmark judgment without clarifying the rationale behind departing from standard review processes.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in dissent, highlighted that “no concept of ex-post facto environmental clearance exists in environmental law,” and warned against approvals that contradict established juristic principles.
The Congress general secretary described the Supreme Court’s recent ruling as a crucial step, reinforcing that executive instructions cannot override the statutory EIA Notification.
“However, the court permits the government to create a statutory mechanism for post-facto environmental clearances under ‘exceptional circumstances,’ which remain loosely defined,” Ramesh added.
He pointed out that incidents from Great Nicobar to the Ken-Betwa project and various mining projects signal a troubling trend. Communities find themselves resisting a pattern where governments and corporations treat environmental laws as mere hurdles.
Ramesh affirmed his continuous support for a large constituency advocating for stringent environmental protections over the past 17 years. He stressed, “We will resist all attempts to further the scope of post-facto environmental clearances, steadfastly defending essential environmental principles.”
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, issued a unanimous verdict applicable prospectively. This decision spared projects granted retrospective clearances from immediate punitive actions, thus safeguarding numerous ongoing projects.
The Supreme Court maintains that the central government possesses sufficient authority under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to formulate notifications for amnesty schemes addressing non-compliant projects, thereby serving larger public interests.
Such projects, including the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital in Odisha and slum rehabilitation efforts, highlight the delicate balance needed between development and environmental integrity.
The ruling stated, “We quash the 2021 Office Memorandum while preserving projects that have progressed based on previous regulatory positions.” The bench emphasized the significant legal uncertainties surrounding the validity of the memorandum.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged the pressing public interest tied to ongoing projects, merging developmental aspirations with environmental preservation. “In an anthropocentric world, we must balance the right to a pollution-free environment with developmental needs for the global population,” stated the court.
To fulfill this responsibility, the bench called for a nuanced approach through eco-centric proportionality, aligning with a Gandhian vision that emphasizes equitable resource distribution.
