Imagine building a huge factory, or digging a large coal mine, or clearing hundreds of acres of forest without getting environmental permission first. Then, months later, you simply ask the government to approve it. Unbelievable? That is exactly what something called post-facto environmental clearances have permitted. But now, the Supreme Court has said this just won't do. On July 29, it struck down an official order given by the Union Environment Ministry in 2021 that permitted such clearances. Now that should be fantastic news. But why are conservationists still worried? Let me break this down for you. Before a big project, a mine, a highway, power plant, factory or dam is built, it usually needs something called an environmental clearance or EC. This is mandatory under the Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA notification of 2006. Think of it like a safety check. Authorities will look at several aspects. Will forests be destroyed? Will rivers be polluted? Will local communities be affected? Can the environmental damage be reduced? The logic is simple. Check first, build later. But over the years, many projects started construction without this mandatory approval. Instead of stopping them the government introduced mechanisms allowing these projects to seek approval after construction had already begun or was even completed Through a notification in 2017, the Union Environment Ministry permitted projects that had begun work on a site and expanded or changed its production facilities without an environmental clearance to get one post facto or retrospectively. And the Ministry's office memorandum in 2021 established a standard operating procedure for this. Now, conservationists have argued that post-facto environmental clearances defeat the very purpose of environmental regulation. After all, if the forest has already been cut down, what exactly are you assessing? That is what Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti asked when it filed a petition challenging the Ministry's orders that enabled retrospective environmental clearances. And in its latest judgment on this on July 29, the Supreme Court struck down the Ministry's 2021 office memorandum that created this mechanism in the first place. The court said something important that environmental clearances should come before a project begins, not after environmental damage may already have occurred. It called the ministry order unconstitutional and a violation of the Environment Protection Act of 1986 But here the twist The court did not ban retrospective environmental clearances altogether The three bench of the Supreme Court that passed the order including the Chief Justice of India, Suryakant, said that the government can give retrospective ECs in some cases in larger public interest. And it can do this by following proper legal processes and issuing a valid statutory notification to enable this. An amnesty scheme, the court called it. Essentially, the shortcut has been blocked, but the legal route remains open. This is why conservationists, including Stalin Dayanand, the director of Manusakti, are not happy with the Supreme Court's order. He said that the court is advising the government on how to break the law. And remember, another bench of the Supreme Court had already ruled against granting retrospective clearances after hearing Rana Shakti's petition. In May 2025, Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjan Buyan had struck down both orders by the Environment Ministry, the one in 2017 and the one in 2021. They had said that retrospective environmental clearances are detrimental to the environment and should not be permitted at all, and that courts should come down heavily on such attempts It was a landmark order for India environment But in November after a private real estate developers association filed a petition against this order the Supreme Court caved in. A bench, including the then Chief Justice B. R. Gawai, recalled the landmark order. It permitted retrospective environmental clearances again. Justice Guyan, who had passed the May 2025 order, called it a step in retrogression. Yet another twist is that the court in its latest July 29th order also said that retrospective clearances obtained by projects so far will remain valid. Though this was done so that ongoing projects are not affected, it is highly contradictory. If the court said that the ministry's office memorandum is unconstitutional, how can its consequences, the retrospective clearances themselves, be legal at all? Moreover, if projects are given clearances after they've initiated their constitutional work, what is the incentive for them then to follow the rules from the start? Ultimately, Dayanand says this will all just lead to another protracted legal battle. One, he says, one Shakti will contest Again, all eyes now are on the Union Environment Ministry. Will it issue a new, legally valid notification to give projects environmental clearances after they've initiated their work? If it does, we'll bring it to you. So keep following the wire.
