Chief Justice B.R. Gavai criticizes selective reading of legal arguments in the landmark Vanashakti case. The Supreme Court emphasizes clarity and fidelity in submissions while reviewing retrospective environmental clearances.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India is in a critical debate on environmental governance. On Thursday, a three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan, heard review applications challenging the landmark Vanashakti judgment. The original verdict barred the Central government from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs), a decision hailed as a strong step toward enforcing environmental accountability.
However, several stakeholders, including industrial entities and public interest litigants, have now approached the Court, seeking reconsideration of its directives. The review petitions raise complex questions about the scope of prior notifications, the role of retrospective approvals, and the principle of proportionality in environmental enforcement.
Chief Justice’s Concern
CJI Gavai opened the hearing with a candid observation about a recurring problem in the Supreme Court: selective or decontextualized reading of arguments.
“We have developed a habit of not relying on lawyers in the Supreme Court. Lines are read out of context, paragraphs are read out of context,”
he remarked, underscoring the importance of clarity and fidelity in legal submissions.
This pointed comment came during arguments by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, and others, who debated the applicability of notifications and Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the Central government.
Petitioners’ Perspective
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing certain petitioners, argued that retrospective clearances were essential for projects that were environmentally compliant under prior approvals, such as select airports.
He highlighted that the OMs were issued in line with National Green Tribunal (NGT) directions and relied on Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Sibal emphasized that enforcement should follow proportionality principles: environmentally sustainable projects could continue, while non-compliant ones should face penalties or closure.
Government’s Stand
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing government companies including SAIL and OMDC, cited specific examples like the construction of a 960-bed AIIMS hospital and medical college. Mehta stressed that retrospective ECs were sought under the 2006 and 2017 notifications that allowed deemed clearance in certain cases.
He argued that the Vanashakti judgment did not account for these provisions, and that demolition of ongoing projects would impose substantial environmental and public costs. Photographs of the AIIMS Kalyan Nagar site were shown to illustrate compliance efforts already underway.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and ASG Aishwarya Bhati echoed the sentiment, emphasizing that penalties had been paid, bank guarantees provided, and clearances sought in good faith. They urged the Court to strike a balance between environmental protection and practical realities.
The Court’s Perspective
The Bench repeatedly emphasized the dangers of misinterpretation. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan noted that all notifications and OMs were publicly available during the NGT and High Court proceedings, countering claims of ignorance by petitioners. The Chief Justice stressed that selective reading had created confusion, and the Court must rely on verified facts rather than fragmented lawyer submissions.
Importantly, the Bench clarified that its examination was limited to whether the Vanashakti judgment itself warranted reconsideration under Article 137 of the Constitution, not the merits of the original OMs or notifications.
Case Title:
Vanashakti v. Union of India
