Centre Can Grant Retrospective Environmental Clearances Through A Statutory Notification: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Central Government can grant post-facto environmental clearances through a valid statutory notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Environmental clearances are mandatory approvals required for development projects to ensure they do not harm the environment, governed by regulations under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is the central authority responsible for granting clearances for large-scale projects (Category A), while state-level authorities handle smaller projects (Category B)

In a verdict pronounced today, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana has set aside the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), which created a mechanism for granting environmental clearance to projects that had commenced operations without obtaining prior EC.

Justice Bagchi, who read out the judgment in court today, has clarified that the court's decision will have a prospective effect and clearances already granted under the impugned regime will be protected.

In November last year, Court had recalled its landmark Vanashakti judgment from May 2025, which barred the Central government from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs). Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, writing separate but concurring opinions, allowed a batch of review petitions and declared the verdict, delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Abhay S Oka (retired) and Ujjal Bhuyan, could not stand in the face of earlier Supreme Court rulings that had recognised limited situations where post-facto EC may be permissible.

CJI noted that the May verdict “did not fully consider the relevant paragraphs of earlier judgments” on the issue which had taken a “balanced view” by holding that while ex-post-facto EC should not ordinarily be granted, certain stipulations and exceptions were underlined in specific circumstances. 

Chief Justice Gavai along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan had examined petitions filed by several stakeholders, including industrial entities and public interest litigants, seeking reconsideration of the Court’s directions. Also Read - Section 244 CrPC: Supreme Court Says

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for certain petitioners, had argued that the Office Memorandums issued by the Central Government were issued in pursuance of National Green Tribunal (NGT) directions and relied on powers under Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. He contended that projects deemed permissible under prior clearances, such as certain airports, were affected unfairly by the Vanashakti judgment and that enforcement needed to follow proportionality principles.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing government companies including SAIL and OMDC, had highlighted specific cases like the construction of a 960-bed AIIMS hospital and medical college. Mehta contended that the retrospective ECs were sought based on the 2006 and 2017 notifications, which provided deemed clearance in certain situations, and that the original judgment did not account for this. He argued that proportionality had to be considered and that demolition of completed projects would impose significant environmental and public costs. Photographs of the AIIMS Kalyan Nagar site were shown to the bench to illustrate ongoing compliance efforts.

Case Title: Vanashakti v. Union of India

Judgment Date: July 29, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justices Bagchi