The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment that environmental activists and legal experts warn could set back decades of environmental protection efforts. In a controversial 2:1 verdict on November 18, the court recalled its earlier decision that had declared post-facto environmental clearances illegal, now permitting retrospective approvals for certain industrial projects.
The Context: India's Environmental Emergency
This ruling comes at a time when India faces unprecedented environmental challenges. The national capital region continues to choke under toxic air, with 83 Indian cities featuring among the world's 100 most polluted urban centers. Medical studies show children in Delhi are losing years of lung function before reaching age 10, while farmers in Punjab and Haryana regularly inhale carcinogenic particles during winter months.
Hospital wards across urban India overflow with patients suffering respiratory conditions, and toddlers increasingly depend on nebulizers for basic breathing. This public health crisis makes environmental safeguards not merely academic concerns but matters of life and death for millions of citizens.
The Legal Reversal: From Ban to Approval
The judicial journey leading to this controversial decision began on May 16, when the Supreme Court in the Vanashakti vs Union of India case unequivocally stated that post-facto environmental clearances were outright illegal. The court had emphasized that the very concept violated fundamental environmental principles.
However, following a review petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India, a three-judge bench revisited this position. The November 18 ruling now allows retrospective environmental clearances for permissible activities as defined in existing regulatory frameworks, though the dissenting judge maintained the original position against such approvals.
Systematic Dilution of Environmental Laws
Legal experts point to five key developments that demonstrate a pattern of weakening environmental governance over the past decade:
The Draft EIA Notification 2020 attempted to institutionalize post-facto clearances, allowing illegally operating industries to obtain approvals retrospectively with minimal penalties. This framework also reduced compliance reporting frequency and expanded exemptions from environmental impact assessments.
Forest Conservation Act amendments redefined protected forest land, excluding vast areas that previously enjoyed judicial protection. The changes particularly enabled infrastructure projects in ecologically sensitive regions like the Northeast to bypass earlier safeguards.
Sector-specific exemptions have placed coal mining, oil exploration, and construction projects in lower regulatory categories. Projects classified as B2 now require no environmental impact assessment or public hearings, eliminating crucial oversight mechanisms.
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2018 significantly weakened protections for fragile coastal ecosystems, allowing construction closer to shorelines and opening sensitive areas for tourism development despite increasing climate risks.
Fast-tracked clearances through expert committees that routinely approve over 95% of projects with minimal field verification, transforming environmental safeguards into mere procedural formalities.
Constitutional Implications and Future Concerns
Environmental clearance represents more than bureaucratic paperwork—it embodies the constitutional guarantee under Article 21's right to life, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted to include the right to clean air, water, and a healthy environment.
The principle behind prior environmental assessment is simple: prevention proves far more effective than attempting remediation after irreversible damage occurs. Communities cannot un-breathe toxic emissions, and ecosystems cannot easily recover from destruction.
Critics argue this judgment creates dangerous precedents by rewarding violators who bypass statutory procedures and cause environmental harm. The message it sends—that compliance is optional while violation remains profitable—undermines the very foundation of environmental governance.
As Member of Parliament and Supreme Court advocate Randeep Singh Surjewala noted, future generations may look back and question why their constitutional right to a healthy environment was dismantled during this critical period. With India battling the world's worst pollution indicators, this ruling risks becoming the final straw in breaking the country's environmental resilience.
