The Congress party declared on Thursday its unwavering resistance against attempts to broaden the scope of post-facto environmental clearances. This statement follows a Supreme Court ruling reinforcing the need for prior environmental approvals, a move Congress views as vital for protecting environmental laws.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court quashed a 2021 office memorandum that had allowed the Centre and other authorities to grant retrospective clearances for projects that began without proper environmental approvals. This ruling came when the apex court underlined that the integrity of environmental safeguards cannot be compromised through administrative orders.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, a former environment minister, emphasized the significance of the court’s ruling, stating, “In May 2025, the Supreme Court’s two-judge bench made it clear that prior environmental clearance is mandatory. The post-facto approvals instituted by the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum rewarded illegal actions and undermined the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, violating principles of sustainable development.”
Ramesh articulated concerns over the Union Government’s push for a review of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment. The government claimed that the judgment threatened to disrupt numerous projects worth crores that had commenced without prior clearances. A three-judge bench reviewed this matter in open court, raising eyebrows due to the lack of explanation regarding its departure from customary review processes.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented in this case, warning against the notion of ex-post facto environmental clearances, calling such approvals toxic to environmental jurisprudence.
The Congress party applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling, highlighting that executive instructions—such as the 2021 Office Memorandum—cannot override statutory requirements of the EIA Notification. Ramesh stated, “This decision marks a step in the right direction, but it also gives the government the leeway to establish a statutory mechanism for post-facto environmental clearances in ‘exceptional circumstances’ that remain undefined.”
From projects in Great Nicobar to mining ventures in Odisha and Chhattisgarh, Ramesh noted a persistent battle where communities resist the notion that environmental regulations are mere obstacles rather than essential regulations. He asserted that for 17 years, he has consistently supported numerous public campaigns aimed at protecting India’s environmental laws from dilution.
Ramesh reaffirmed, “We will remain resolute in resisting every attempt to expand post-facto environmental clearances. Defending the core principles of environmental law is crucial, especially for marginalized communities.”
The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict, delivered by Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, stipulated that while projects previously receiving retrospective environmental clearances will not face punitive actions, those approvals stemmed from invalid administrative authority.
The court emphasized the central government’s authority under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to create appropriate notifications related to non-compliant projects for the greater public good. This includes vital infrastructure such as the AIIMS Medical College in Odisha and irrigation projects for drought-prone areas.
In its observation, the Supreme Court stated, “We hold the 2021 Office Memorandum to be invalid and quash it with prospective effect, recognizing significant legal uncertainties around the validity of previous instruments.”
The court pronounced that efforts must seek to balance the right to a pollution-free environment with developmental aspirations for a significant portion of the global population.
The bench concluded that to fulfill this challenging task, an eco-centric approach is crucial, reflecting Gandhi’s view that “the world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”
