New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive blow to the practice of granting retrospective or ex-post facto Environmental Clearances (ECs) for projects that violate environmental regulations. The judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025) marks a significant step toward stricter enforcement of environmental laws, reinforcing the sanctity of prior environmental clearances under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006. This ruling, combined with other recent judicial developments, including a defamation suit against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and an increase in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for judicial promotions, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles and public accountability.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Retrospective Environmental Clearances
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and supported by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, declared the grant of ex-post facto ECs as a “gross illegality” and an “anathema” to environmental jurisprudence. The court explicitly restrained the Union government from issuing such clearances to regularize illegal constructions or operations that commenced without prior ECs, as mandated by the EIA Notification of 2006.
The EIA Notification, issued on January 27, 1994, and updated in 2006, categorizes projects into two groups for environmental appraisal:
- Category A: Projects requiring prior EC from the Central Government’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), based on recommendations from an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
- Category B: Projects needing prior EC from State or Union Territory Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA), guided by State or UT-level Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC).
The court struck down the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), along with related circulars and orders, deeming them illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. These provisions had allowed projects—particularly in mining, construction, and industry—that began operations without prior clearance to seek retrospective approval, effectively creating a parallel compliance pathway that undermined the preventive intent of the EIA framework.
Justice Oka emphasized that the concept of ex-post facto ECs contradicts the fundamental principles of environmental law, which require a careful assessment of a project’s environmental impact before its commencement. “The concept of an ex-post facto EC is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA Notification of January 27, 1994,” he stated. The court noted that granting retrospective clearances essentially legitimizes illegal activities, allowing violators—often powerful entities like corporations, real estate developers, public sector undertakings, and mining industries—to bypass regulations knowingly.
The judgment clarified that ECs already granted under the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM would remain unaffected to avoid disrupting existing projects. However, the court prohibited the government from reintroducing similar policies, accusing the Centre of “crafty drafting” to protect violators. The 2021 OM, in particular, avoided explicit use of the term “ex-post facto” but effectively permitted retrospective regularization, which the court deemed “completely arbitrary and illegal.”
The ruling builds on prior judicial precedent, notably Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals (2020), where the Supreme Court had similarly declared retrospective clearances alien to environmental law. The court criticized the government for ignoring these precedents, particularly the Common Cause judgment, which was delivered in the same year as the 2017 Notification.
Environmental activists hailed the decision as a victory for ecological protection. Stalin D, director of Vanashakti, one of the petitioners, stated, “The judiciary has upheld the constitutional obligations of the state to protect the environment and forests. The balance should always be in favor of conservation.” He highlighted the irreversible nature of ecological damage, noting, “Once you lose an ecologically important area, how can you recreate it? You destroy a mountain, how do you recreate it?”
Debadityo Sinha from the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy called the verdict a “victory for environmental rule of law,” emphasizing that retrospective clearances violate the Precautionary Principle and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. However, Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust offered a more cautious perspective, noting that while the ruling is significant, it fails to penalize violators who benefited from earlier clearances. “The order sounds great on paper, but it actually seems meaningless since all the violators have got away scot-free along with the decision-makers who have connived with them,” Goenka remarked.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had previously defended the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM, arguing they provided a “one-time opportunity” for violators to seek regularization within a six-month window (expired in September 2017) and later to address ongoing violations under the “polluter pays” principle. The ministry warned that denying regularization could lead to large-scale demolitions, citing the 2021 Supertech Twin Towers case. However, the court dismissed these arguments, asserting that development cannot come at the expense of environmental conservation.
Industry representatives, such as BK Bhatia from the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), expressed concerns about the economic impacts of the ruling, arguing that applications pending under the now-invalidated provisions should have been processed with penalties.
Newslaundry Journalists File Defamation Suit Against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra
In a separate legal development, nine women journalists from Newslaundry, including Executive Editor Manisha Pande, filed a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra. The suit alleges that Iyer-Mitra made “vulgar” and defamatory remarks on X between February and May 2025, referring to the journalists as “prostitutes” and their workplace as a “brothel.” The plaintiffs, represented by advocates Uddhav Khanna and Dhruva Vig, are seeking a court order to restrain Iyer-Mitra from posting further defamatory content, a written apology, and damages of ₹2 crore.
The suit describes eight “revolting posts” by Iyer-Mitra as a “scathing and belligerent attack” aimed at gaining “cheap publicity and eyeballs.” The journalists, described as young media professionals, argued that these remarks caused “enormous mental trauma, harassment, and embarrassment” among their peers, friends, and family. The suit further contends that Iyer-Mitra’s statements are not only defamatory but also constitute a criminal offense, warranting removal from social media platforms.
Supreme Court Enhances LDCE Quota for Judicial Promotions
On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court, in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others, increased the LDCE quota for promoting Civil Judges (Senior Division) to District Judges from 10% to 25%. The decision, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and AG Masih, aims to incentivize meritorious judicial officers by providing a fast-track promotion route.
The LDCE allows in-service judicial officers to advance ahead of their batchmates through a competitive assessment. The court noted that the 25% quota was originally set in 2002 (Third AIJA Case) but reduced to 10% in 2010 (Fourth AIJA Case) due to a shortage of eligible candidates. With sufficient candidates now available, the court restored the higher quota and reduced the minimum qualifying service for LDCE eligibility to three years.
The court also directed that 10% of posts in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre be reserved for accelerated promotions of Civil Judges (Junior Division) with three years of service via the LDCE. High Courts were instructed to devise tests to assess candidates’ legal knowledge and efficiency, while the remaining 25% of posts should be filled based on merit through LDCE for those with at least five years of service. The court mandated that High Courts and State governments amend service rules to align LDCE vacancy calculations with overall cadre strength.
Broader Implications and Public Response
The Supreme Court’s rulings on environmental clearances and judicial promotions, alongside the defamation suit, reflect a broader judicial push for accountability and adherence to constitutional principles. The ban on retrospective ECs strengthens India’s environmental framework, aligning with global climate change jurisprudence and emphasizing the Precautionary Principle. The increase in the LDCE quota enhances opportunities for judicial officers, promoting meritocracy within the judiciary.
Public reactions to these developments vary. Environmentalists view the EC ruling as a triumph for conservation, while industry stakeholders worry about economic repercussions. The defamation suit highlights ongoing tensions between free speech and responsible journalism, raising questions about the boundaries of public discourse on social media.
As India navigates these complex issues, the judiciary’s role in balancing development, environmental protection, and individual rights remains critical. These rulings set a precedent for stricter enforcement of laws and accountability, ensuring that neither powerful entities nor individuals can evade responsibility for their actions.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What did the Supreme Court rule regarding retrospective environmental clearances in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025)?
The Supreme Court, in its May 16, 2025, ruling, banned the grant of ex-post facto or retrospective Environmental Clearances (ECs) for projects that started without prior approval under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006. The court struck down the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum, declaring them illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that such clearances contradict environmental jurisprudence, but existing ECs granted under these provisions remain unaffected.
2. Why did the Supreme Court strike down retrospective environmental clearances?
The court ruled that retrospective ECs undermine the EIA Notification’s requirement for prior environmental assessment, allowing violators—often corporations, real estate developers, and mining industries—to bypass regulations. The judgment highlighted that such clearances legitimize illegal activities, contravening the Precautionary Principle and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and accused the government of “crafty drafting” to protect violators.
3. What changes were made to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for judicial promotions?
On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court increased the LDCE quota for promoting Civil Judges (Senior Division) to District Judges from 10% to 25%, as decided in All India Judges Association v. Union of India. It also reduced the minimum qualifying service for LDCE eligibility to three years and reserved 10% of Civil Judge (Senior Division) posts for accelerated promotions of Civil Judges (Junior Division). High Courts were directed to devise tests and amend rules to align vacancy calculations with cadre strength.
4. What is the defamation suit filed by Newslaundry journalists against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra about?
Nine women journalists from Newslaundry, including Executive Editor Manisha Pande, filed a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for referring to them as “prostitutes” and their workplace as a “brothel” in eight X posts between February and May 2025. They seek a restraining order, a written apology, and ₹2 crore in damages, citing mental trauma and reputational harm.
5. How have environmentalists and industry representatives responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling on retrospective ECs?
Environmentalists, like Stalin D of Vanashakti, hailed the ruling as a victory for ecological protection, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding conservation. However, Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust noted its limited impact due to unpunished past violators. Industry representatives, such as BK Bhatia from the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, expressed concerns about economic impacts, arguing that pending applications should have been processed with penalties.
