The Supreme Court last week recalled its own order that banned the granting of retrospective environmental clearances for projects. The top court had earlier struck down an order of the Central Government that had allowed environmental clearance to be given to projects that had already been taken forward without permissions. The decision was arrived at by a three-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India, who authored a majority judgment, even though Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan penned a strong dissent, noting that such a move was a step in retrogression. And indeed it is.
In the earlier judgment delivered on May 15, 2025, the apex court had taken a firm stand and had struck down the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, both of which allowed ex post facto ECs, calling them illegal and unconstitutional.
The EC notification mandates that all real estate projects above 20,000 sq metres would need an environmental clearance. The latest Supreme Court judgement means that developers can go ahead with their projects irrespective of whether they have obtained environmental clearances or not. In effect, the judgment has made the need for an environmental clearance a mere formality. A piece of legislation that needs to be complied with only on paper, while in practice, it is a free-for-all to do as they please, with the approval of the Supreme Court, no less.
Environmental Clearance law in India has already been reduced to a mere formality. Environmental impact assessment studies are sponsored by the project proponents themselves, conducted by agencies more concerned with presenting an impressive-looking project report rather than a comprehensive one and very rarely, if ever, has an EC report suggested that a project not be taken ahead because its impact on the environment would mean it is not taking it forward is a better option.
They are more concerned with how best to justify the project despite its environmental threats. But more than that, this judgment strikes at how absurd it sounds when looked at plainly. What use will an environmental clearance be once a project is already completed and the damage is already done? Can extinct species be brought back into existence? Can the people who lost their traditional occupations and livelihoods be brought back or given their livelihoods back?
But more than that, a judgment such as this appears to serve or reward those who show contempt for environmental law, and would rather carry forward with their projects anyway, only applies for the environmental clearance at a time by which it represents a fait accompli.
While the Supreme Court judgement may bring relief to businessmen and companies who are only concerned with profit over people and the environment, in Goa, it could mean irreversible damage.
With no recourse left, it is up to the people of this country and this state to stand up and make their voices heard and be counted against unwanted projects, damaging to the environment, to ecosystems, to livelihoods and to the social structures of communities.
No court will be able to resist the voices of the people when they make themselves heard. It is much easier to do so when the pressure from the moneyed class and the political class is greater than from the common class.
