Supreme Court recalls its decision barring Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearances

The Supreme Court today recalled its landmark Vanashakti judgment from May 2025, which barred the Central government from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs).

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.

In October the bench of Chief Justice B.R. 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.

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.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had reinforced the point, stating that penalties and bank guarantees had been paid and clearances were sought in good faith. ASG Aishwarya Bhati had stressed the environmental cost of demolitions, arguing for a balanced approach.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for another party, had submitted that the record of the case demonstrated that notifications and OMs had been in the public domain and stayed at relevant times. He suggested that the claims of ignorance by petitioners were misplaced, noting that all parties were aware of the legal position during the pendency of the NGT and High Court proceedings.

The Chief Justice had repeatedly emphasized the challenge of misinterpretation, pointing out that selective reading of arguments had created confusion and highlighted the Court’s need to rely on verified facts rather than fragmented lawyer submissions. The Bench, while hearing extensive arguments on whether the review petitions raised sufficient grounds under Article 137 of the Constitution, clarified that it was not examining the merits of the original OMs or notifications. Instead, the focus remained on whether the Vanashakti judgment itself merited reconsideration.

Case Title: Vanashakti v. Union of India

Judgment Date: November 18, 2025

Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan