Today, On 12th February, The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh’s plea challenging the legality of ex post facto environmental clearances. Chief Justice Surya Kant warned him, “Have you filed this for media publicity? Be ready for exemplary costs.”
The Supreme Court of India took up the petition filed by senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh, in which he had questioned the validity and legality of giving ex post facto environmental clearances.
However, the top court refused to entertain the plea.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked how such a writ petition could be filed when the Supreme Court itself, in its Vanashakti review judgment, had already upheld the Union Government’s Office Memorandums that permit ex post facto Environmental Clearances (ECs).
When the counsel appearing for Jairam Ramesh said,
“I’m challenging all three petition
The CJI immediately responded that the court could clearly see the intention behind the move.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stated to the petitioner’s counsel,
“Why has this been filed? You are clearly aware that a 3-judge bench has already expressed its view,”
The CJI further remarked,
“Don’t try to now take left and right rules. Basically, we know the design behind these kind of petitions. Now you have a, there was a judgment that has been set aside by the larger bench. Now you are indirectly filing a review petition.”
Repeating the point, the CJI said again,
“Now you are indirectly filing a review petition. You want to say that this review petition that is a petition wrong. Why don’t you say directly?”
The counsel replied that he was raising only two limited points and that he was challenging ex post facto clearances on principle. He stated,
“I am saying two very limited things. I’m saying it’s post facto clearances are wrong. And I’m saying that only that cause of action only arose after the judgment.”
The Chief Justice then questioned why a proper review petition was not filed and also cautioned that using a writ petition to raise review-type arguments could lead to exemplary costs.
Chief Justice Surya Kant cautioned,
“Have you filed this for media publicity? Be ready for exemplary costs.”
The bench inquired about the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 against a court judgment. The counsel explained that the petitioner was also contesting the Office Memorandum (OM) issued in January 2026.
When the bench questioned the reason behind the issuance of the January 2026 OM, the counsel clarified that it was meant to implement the review judgment in Vanashakti.
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“How the writ is maintainable? The Government has issued a notification in compliance with the Supreme Court Judgment. By challenging it, you are indirectly seeking a review of the judgment. How is it possible?”
Following this, the counsel decided to withdraw the writ petition, retaining the option to seek a review of the November judgment. The petition was consequently dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to pursue remedies as per the law.
Case Title: JAIRAM RAMESH vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000190 / 2026
Read Live Coverage