The Supreme Court was urged to constitute a bench to reconsider petitions on retrospective environmental clearances after projects violated norms. Referring to its November 18, 2025 ruling, a 2:1 majority led by then CJI B R Gavai permitted it.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court was requested to form a bench to rehear the petitions concerning the issuance of retrospective environmental clearances for projects that have violated environmental regulations.
On November 18, 2025, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice B R Gavai, with a majority of 2:1, allowed for the possibility of retrospective environmental clearances (ECs) from the Centre and relevant authorities for projects that breached environmental norms, contingent on the payment of significant penalties. The court noted that failing to do so could result in “thousands of crores of rupees going to waste.”
Earlier, on May 16, 2025, a bench comprising Justice A S Oka, who has since retired, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had prohibited the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and related authorities from granting retrospective ECs to projects found in violation of environmental standards.
The Gavai-led bench reversed this decision and mandated a fresh hearing on the petitions, including one filed by the NGO ‘Vanshakti.’
Earlier, the Supreme Court had brought back the legal system that allows retrospective environmental clearances (EC) for projects that started work or expanded without taking prior permission under the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) rules. With this, the Court revived a mechanism that had earlier been struck down.
During the earlier proceeding, CJI Gavai said that,
“The 2020 OM was issued as directed by the NGT. We’ve referred to two earlier coordinate bench rulings, including MCGM. Both the 2020 OM and the 2017 Notification allow ECs only for permissible activities; anything in prohibited zones like CRZ or grasslands must be demolished. If reviews aren’t allowed, public projects worth Rs.20,000 crore may have to be torn down. In my view, the Vanashakti judgment should be recalled, and I have allowed the review though my brother Justice Bhuyan disagrees.”
Now, during the proceedings, a bench made up of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by a lawyer about the need for a three-judge bench to review the cases anew.
CJI Kant replied,
“We will see,”
The majority opinion was authored by CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, who reversed the May 16 ruling. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who participated in the May 16 decision, issued a strong dissent, highlighting that the post-facto grant of EC is “unknown” and “anathema” to environmental law, as it contradicts both the precautionary principle and the necessity for sustainable development.
The majority ruling effectively revived the contentious 2017 notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that established a means for projects that had commenced construction without the required prior EC to legitimate their activities by paying penalties.
Justice Gavai instructed the registry to bring the matter to the Chief Justice’s attention on the administrative side for appropriate orders to facilitate a fresh hearing regarding the petitions against the Centre’s notification and OM.