The Supreme Court of India recently revisited its earlier decision that declared retrospective environmental clearances illegal. This change, decided by a 2-1 majority, underscores the tension between environmental law and economic development. The majority opinion, led by CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, emphasized the potential economic repercussions and the hindrance of vital public infrastructure projects if the earlier judgment were upheld.
The initial decision, driven by a bench including Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, invalidated ex post facto environmental clearances. This ruling struck down government notifications from 2017 and 2021 that permitted these clearances, accusing the government of regularizing unlawful constructions through convoluted legal maneuvers.
The majority opinion highlighted the significant economic costs and public interest concerns. Projects worth billions were at risk, including major developments such as the AIIMS in Odisha and the Vijayanagar airport. The court noted that demolishing these structures could lead to immense financial waste and job losses.
Furthermore, the majority argued that previous rulings had allowed ex post facto clearances in certain circumstances. Legal precedents, such as those in the Electrosteel Steels Ltd and Pahwa Plastics cases, were cited as being overlooked by the initial judgment. They advocated for penalties as a deterrent while maintaining compliance without resorting to demolition.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan strongly dissented, asserting that retrospective clearances undermine the precautionary principle, a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. He argued that this recall represented a regression from established environmental standards and cautioned against framing environmental protection and development as opposing forces.
The dissenting view stressed the necessity of accountability, highlighting that builders who breached environmental norms should not be excused. Justice Bhuyan also referenced the persistent air pollution in Delhi as a reminder of the critical need for environmental vigilance.
The judgment calls for the establishment of clear, prompt environmental clearance procedures, stronger monitoring, and substantial penalties for violations. It suggests harmonizing judicial precedents and promoting sustainable infrastructure projects that align with both public interest and environmental sustainability.
The Supreme Court's decision to recall its earlier judgment on retrospective environmental clearances marks a pivotal moment in balancing environmental and developmental imperatives. This move highlights the need for robust legal frameworks, precise judicial guidance, and a commitment to sustainable development that safeguards both economic and ecological interests.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
