CJI BR Gavai stated that he did not alter his judgment in the retrospective environmental-clearance case even after reading Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s sharp dissent. The Supreme Court’s majority recalled an earlier ruling, while Justice Bhuyan warned the decision weakens core environmental principles.
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai said on Monday that he did not make any changes to his draft judgment in the retrospective environmental-clearance case, even after reading the dissenting opinion written by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
The CJI explained that although judges in the past have revised their judgments after reading a colleague’s dissent, he chose not to do so in this case.
ALSO READ: CJI Gavai Wants Ex-CJI Chandrachud To Be Removed Immediately?
There was a recent example involving former CJI DY Chandrachud, who reportedly removed certain lines from his final judgment on the meaning of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).
This happened after he read Justice BV Nagarathna’s dissent, where she objected to him saying that judges of earlier decades had done “a disservice to the Constitution.”
When the final judgment was uploaded, the line —
“the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution”
— was no longer present.
Referring to such past incidents but without naming anyone, CJI Gavai said that Justice Bhuyan had sharply criticised his majority judgment.
ALSO READ: “Justice at Your Doorstep”: CJI Gavai Calls for Decentralised Courts Across India
The CJI stated:
“Though my judgment has been criticised in the second judgment … though there has been a precedent in this very courtroom of either writing a rejoinder or correcting the earlier judgment so as to meet the challenges on following the judicial discipline, judicial decency and judicial decorum, I have not changed a single word in my judgment.”
The Supreme Court, by majority, decided to recall an earlier ruling where a two-judge bench had struck down a government notification and an Office Memorandum related to giving ex post facto (retrospective) Environmental Clearance (EC) for building and construction projects.
CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the review petition challenging that previous decision, but Justice Ujjal Bhuyan disagreed and wrote a strong dissent.
Justice Bhuyan warned that the Court must not appear to reverse the strong and well-developed environmental jurisprudence of India, especially in response to a review petition filed by parties who, according to him, had not shown proper respect for the law.
He wrote:
“The review judgment is an innocent expression of opinion. It overlooks the very fundamentals of environmental jurisprudence. Precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. Polluter pays is only a principle of reparation. Precautionary principle cannot be given a short shrift by relying on polluter pays principle. The review judgment is a step in retrogression.”
Justice Bhuyan emphasised that environmental protection in India has always been based on principles like “precautionary principle,” which requires avoiding environmental harm even before it happens, not after.
He expressed concern that the majority’s decision might weaken these long-established standards.
ALSO READ: CJI BR Gavai Warns: ‘Social Media Can Misinterpret Judges’ Remarks’
Overall, Monday’s decision highlights a rare and open disagreement within the Supreme Court on how India should balance development with environmental safeguards.
The CJI stood firm on his reasoning and refused to revise his judgment, while the dissenting judge strongly warned that the Court must not dilute the country’s core environmental protections.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
