Breaking the rules, Pg6

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court reversed its May 2025 order staying the grant of post-facto environmental clearances.
• The ruling addresses the legality and implications of Environment Ministry instruments that had normalized exceptions to prior environmental clearance (EC).
• The court acknowledged that 'EC first' remains the legal default, but allows for post-facto clearances in specific cases where significant resources are already committed.
• The court's decision aims to address perceived discrimination between past and future violators of environmental regulations.

Detailed Insights:

• The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and subsequent EIA notifications mandate prior environmental clearance for large projects before commencement.
• Prior to this reversal, court decisions had largely deemed post-facto ECs impermissible where prior EC was mandatory, emphasizing preventative environmental protection.
• The new ruling permits 'regularisation' via post-facto clearances in cases with committed resources, typically accompanied by penalties, but maintains that such clearances should be rare.
• Post-facto clearances undermine the core rationale of EIAs, which is to assess environmental impacts and make informed decisions before projects begin.
• The court's concern about differential treatment arose from the Vanashakti case, which struck down notifications facilitating post-facto ECs but allowed existing ones to stand.
• The ruling suggests that addressing discrimination should involve tightening existing clearances rather than normalizing post-facto regularisation.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Environmental Clearance (EC): Permission granted for a project after assessing its potential environmental impact.
• Post-facto EC: Environmental clearance granted after a project has commenced or is completed.
• EIA Notification: Government notification outlining the process and requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments.