[Answered] The Supreme Court’s recent verdict striking down post-facto environmental clearances underlines the judiciary’s role in upholding sustainable development. In this context, critically examine the significance of this judgment and its implications for India’s environmental governance.

Introduction

The principle of sustainable development, enshrined in Indian environmental jurisprudence, seeks a balance between developmental needs and ecological preservation. In a landmark verdict on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), which had allowed post-facto environmental clearances. This decision is a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to environmental protection and the constitutional right to a healthy environment under Article 21.

Background: The Issue of Post-Facto Clearances

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 mandates that industrial and infrastructure projects secure prior environmental clearance before commencement. However:

1. The 2017 notification provided a one-time amnesty for violators, allowing projects to obtain clearance retrospectively.
2. The 2021 OM institutionalized this by laying down a process to “identify and handle” such violations.

This effectively weakened the EIA framework, allowing numerous high-impact projects (like coal and bauxite mines, cement plants) to bypass scrutiny, endangering ecological and public health.

Significance of the Supreme Court Verdict

1. Affirms the Precautionary Principle: The Court categorically held that post-facto clearances violate the precautionary principle, which mandates preventive action in the face of environmental risks.
2. Reinforces Article 21: The judgment strengthens the interpretation of Right to Life as inclusive of the right to a clean and healthy environment, especially in the context of rising urban pollution and ecological degradation.
3. Condemns Regulatory Dilution: The Court criticized the executive for “going out of its way” to protect violators, signaling judicial intolerance towards regulatory laxity and environmental non-compliance.
4. Upholds Past Precedents: The ruling echoes earlier judgments such as:

• Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) – condemned illegal mining without clearance.
• Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) – declared post-facto clearances unconstitutional.

Implications for Environmental Governance

1. Restoration of Legal Sanctity: The verdict restores the primacy of law and procedure in environmental clearances, deterring future violators.
2. Strengthens Environmental Institutions: The decision urges regulators to act with diligence and integrity, improving institutional accountability.
3. Challenges to Ease-of-Doing-Business Mindset: The judgment critiques the false dichotomy between development and ecology, reminding policymakers that environmental protection is intrinsic to sustainable growth.
4. Need for Policy Overhaul: The ruling may push for a revision of the EIA process, ensuring transparency, public participation, and scientific scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict is a landmark reaffirmation of environmental constitutionalism in India. It reiterates that sustainable development is not a zero-sum game, and that economic progress must not come at the cost of environmental degradation. Going forward, it is imperative for the executive to realign regulatory frameworks with constitutional principles and for civil society to ensure vigilant implementation of environmental safeguards.