SC order on retrospective environmental clearances a step forward but gaps remain: Experts
Policy experts on Saturday welcomed the
Supreme Court
's decision barring the government from granting retrospective environmental clearances but warned that loopholes in environmental laws still exist, and citizens must stay alert to protect their constitutional rights. In a landmark ruling on Friday, the apex court said the government cannot grant retrospective environmental clearances in the future.
The court made it clear that projects started without mandatory prior
environmental clearance
cannot be legalised later. It added that violators who knowingly ignored the law cannot be protected.
The judgement came in response to petitions filed by the NGO Vanashakti and others, challenging two government office memorandums issued in July 2021 and January 2022 which had created a system to grant environmental clearance to projects that began operations without prior approval under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
Stalin D, Director of Vanashakti, told PTI that citizens must now ensure the court's directions are followed.
"The judgement clearly says the government cannot try and provide a safe haven for violators. So, we have to ensure that our constitutional framework is not violated in any way."
Live Events
"One more very pertinent thing in that order is that the people who violated this are not illiterate persons. They are educated, well connected, rich people who knew that they were engaging in a violation, which needs to stop now," he said.
Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, said while it is a good order, knowing the history of environment ministry and project proponents, they will find a way around.
She said post-facto approvals mean the damage is already done before clearance is granted.
"Will these stop and the ministry obey the SC orders? Let's wait and watch Though knowing the record of MoEFCC, they give two hoots for SC orders and may blatantly disregard them," she added.
Himanshu Thakkar, Coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, said the decision is welcome but should have come earlier. He also raised concerns about enforcement.
"This is welcome, but the directions could have come sooner. It shows that our system is very slow to react."
"Secondly, where is your credible monitoring system to ensure that this doesn't happen? The third thing is there is a bypassing of the law happening. For example, land acquisition is allowed, even when environment clearance is not there. If you have already acquired land, you are creating impacts, displacing people, you are making the project fait accompli," Thakkar said.
"So, the Supreme Court also needs to put down more stipulations that you cannot acquire land without environmental clearance because once you acquire the land, then you get the right over the land and you can do what you want to do with it, which is again movement towards irreversibility. So, these kinds of loopholes are still there," he said.
Debadityo Sinha, Lead - Climate and Ecosystems at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said the very purpose of the EIA process is to evaluate alternatives, assess environmental and social impacts and enable public consultation before any project receives approval. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures development does not come at the cost of ecological integrity."
"Granting post-facto Environmental Clearance undermines this entire framework, allowing projects to bypass due diligence and legal scrutiny. It effectively opens the floodgates for unsustainable, poorly planned developments, often in ecologically sensitive areas, where such projects would never have passed scrutiny in the first place. This not only sets a dangerous precedent but incentivises illegal construction in the hope of regularisation through backdoor clearances," he said.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at law firm KS Legal and Associates, said the Supreme Court's decision may shake up the existing system but is not a cure-all.
"By killing ex post facto approvals, it puts companies on notice that you start without clearance and you are gambling with your entire project with no retroactive bailouts. Smaller firms, less equipped for legal warfare, might fall in line, seeking clearances upfront to avoid ruin. Activists and communities gain a stronger edge to hold violators accountable, as courts now have a clearer mandate to reject post-facto fixes," she said.
Guman Singh, Coordinator of Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, said they had opposed the government's move to allow retrospective environmental clearances.
He said the Supreme Court's decision clearly reinforces that environmental laws cannot be diluted to legalise illegal projects and promotes ecological accountability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
HC sets aside govt order barring candidate from govt service
Cuttack: The Orissa high court has set aside the Odisha govt's 2017 order that permanently barred a SC candidate, Dibakar Patra, from all future govt employment for procedural lapses in a judicial recruitment process. The court, however, upheld the cancellation of his candidature for the post of civil judge. Patra, a non-judicial court employee, had applied for the post of civil judge pursuant to a notification issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) in 2017. However, he failed to route his application through the proper channel — his employer — and did not obtain a mandatory 'No Objection Certificate' before entering the recruitment process. Citing this violation, the govt cancelled his candidature and permanently debarred him from future govt service via an order dated June 30, 2017. Aggrieved, Patra approached the high court the same year, seeking redress. Delivering the verdict on June 17, a division bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and MS Sahoo noted that while Patra's actions were procedurally incorrect, the punishment meted out was "too harsh to be sustained." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain | search ads Find Now Undo "As a layman, what he has done is wrong and therefore, he cannot be crushed by a sledge hammer, when a mild pinch would do the rightful," the bench observed, invoking the principle of proportionality. The court noted that the impugned govt order was not a "speaking order" and lacked specific reasons to justify such a severe punishment. "No special reasons are assigned to justify a permanent embargo as if a heinous sin is committed by the candidate," the bench stated, adding that his mistake did not reflect a guilty mind or serious misconduct. While agreeing with the state counsel that Patra's entry into the recruitment process was vitiated by illegality and hence could not result in appointment, the court rejected the govt's decision to permanently debar him from all future public employment. The bench clarified that Patra is entitled to participate in future recruitment processes if otherwise eligible. "Errors do occur in any human transaction... His case is miles away from the precincts of penal provision," the judgment said. The high court thus quashed the June 30, 2017 govt order only to the extent it permanently barred Patra from public employment, offering the petitioner a fresh chance to pursue govt service.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC
The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law. The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media. 'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote. 'Colourable exercise of power' The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'. The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said. 'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised. 'Need solid evidence' Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality. 'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions,' the top court held. Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.
The Wire
8 hours ago
- The Wire
In Critique of Draft Rohith Vemula Bill, UN Experts Urge Stronger Safeguards for SC, ST Students
New Delhi: Two United Nations special rapporteurs have issued a detailed statement raising concerns and offering recommendations on the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill proposed by the Karnataka government and urged the government to consider them. Ashwini K.P., special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, and Nicolas Levrat, special rapporteur on minority issues, noted that while the Bill aims to combat caste-based discrimination in higher education, it lacks key human rights protections and clarity in legal definitions. The draft legislation of the law, named after Rohith Vemula, seeks to criminalise discrimination against students from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and religious minorities in educational institutions. The special rapporteurs come under the purview of the 'special procedures' of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC); they are 'independent human rights experts' who are mandated by the UN to report and advise on 'human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective'. Under their special mandate from the UNHRC, they have highlighted 'several human rights considerations that should be considered during the ongoing development of the legislation'. UN concerns on the draft Bill The special rapporteurs stated that the draft Bill does not mention 'specific protection for Dalits and Adivasis against disproportionate discrimination in various areas' and urged the drafting committee to 'explicitly' include provisions for their protection. Ashwini K.P., replying to an email questionnaire by The Wire, said: 'The current draft clubs OBCs, SC, ST and minority communities together. All of them face marginalisation, but it's crucial to understand and recognise the heterogeneous nature of their experiences. The persistent and systematic forms of discrimination that Dalit and Adivasi students face require explicit acknowledgement.' They also claimed that there is a lack of definition for 'direct or indirect discrimination', which could result in the law failing to provide 'comprehensive protection' to those affected. It could also lead to misuse of the law and oppression of activities unrelated to the law, including those in the 'defence of human rights'. The draft includes provisions to imprison a person convicted of discriminating against SC, ST, OBC and minority students for up to one year or impose a fine of Rs 10,000. Heads of higher education institutions will also be held liable, and the institutions may lose government aid or grants in case of such convictions. The punitive nature of the draft law was also criticised. They warned that it may 'undermine the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial or ethnic groups'. Focusing on addressing the social roots of caste-based discrimination, the rapporteurs recommended placing greater emphasis on effective 'preventive measures' such as orientation programmes and educational awareness campaigns. To ensure effective implementation, they also recommended setting up a grievance redressal mechanism, ensuring 'protection for whistleblowers' and introducing 'accountability measures' for educational institutions that fail to comply. The special rapporteurs also claimed that the Bill's drafting process has not been sufficiently deliberative and has not included the 'voices of those who may experience caste-based discrimination and harassment, including Dalit and Adivasi students, scholars and activists'. They called upon the committee to introduce provisions that make the process more transparent, consultative and participatory. Finally, the rapporteurs noted the need for diversity and proportional representation in the drafting committee itself and urged that there be 'proportionate caste, gender and geographical representation from the state of Karnataka in the committee'. The political equation The move to draft this law comes after leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, wrote a letter to the three Congress-led state governments in April urging them to enact the law that was promised in the party's 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto. Following this, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah instructed his legal adviser to prepare a draft of the Bill. 'The Union government brushed the incident under the carpet although it was clear that Rohith Vemula was targeted because of his [Dalit] caste,' said minister Priyank Kharge confirming that he provided inputs for drafting the Bill. However, Ashwini claimed that the Indian government 'has not approached the UNHRC or any other international bodies for recommendations'. Meanwhile, the BJP's leader of opposition in the Karnataka legislative council, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, agreed that caste-based discrimination should be banned but questioned whether such discrimination can be addressed solely through legislation. This is not the first time that such a demand has been raised. In 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi – the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi – filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding that the government enforce the 2012 University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations that aim to protect vulnerable students from discrimination in educational institutions. The UGC guidelines also have a specific definition of 'discrimination' and various kinds of discriminatory behaviour, but in January 2025, after the case was heard only for the second time, the UGC released new draft regulations intended to replace the 2012 ones. N. Sukumar, a professor at Delhi University, noted in an interview to Scroll that in the new draft, 'these terms are loosely defined'. When the various aspects of the problem are not properly defined, 'there is hardly any scope to address the issues of caste on the campus.' Rohith Vemula and a legacy of institutional violence Vemula, a PhD scholar belonging to Dalit community at the University of Hyderabad, was among five students suspended in September 2015 following a complaint filed by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP's ideological fountainhead. His monthly research fellowship of Rs 25,000 was also discontinued, reportedly due to his activities in the Ambedkar Students' Association. The ABVP's complaint was forwarded by then-Union minister Bandaru Dattatreya to then-human resource development minister Smriti Irani, who subsequently asked the university to take appropriate action. Following their suspension and removal from university housing, the students began a relay hunger strike and stayed in a temporary tent on campus. On January 17, 2016, Vemula died by suicide, leaving behind a note in which he expressed a deep sense of disillusionment and described his birth as a 'fatal accident'. His death was one amongst numerous such incidents in the past two decades where a Dalit student was allegedly pushed over the edge and died by suicide. Activists consider these to be 'institutional murders', since every part of the education institution – including the student body, the faculty and the administration – are said to work in tandem to make sure that caste hierarchies are upheld and no voices can be raised against it. This leaves the student completely cornered. Some say that caste-based discrimination, humiliating abuse and alienation by peers have pushed students like Payal Tadvi, Darshan Solanki, Ayush Ashna and Varad Sanjay Nerkar over the edge. They were allegedly targeted for belonging to a certain caste and viewed as not fit to be in such institutions. There are no avenues for redressal of complaints as well, since the administration too engages in suppressing their voices, activists say. While a few of these cases received media attention, many others were recorded through an independent study by the Delhi-based Insight Foundation, led by educationist Anoop Kumar. Path ahead Ashwini claims that 'currently there is no specific legislation in India which addresses caste-based discrimination in higher education for Dalit and Adivasi students. While some mechanisms such as grievance redressal cells exist in colleges and universities, there is no exclusive framework to protect students from marginalised backgrounds in academic spaces.' Therefore, although some critics believe that the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill is a politically motivated move by the Congress, Ashwini believes that 'the intention behind the Rohith Vemula Act is to fill this gap and ensure a safe space for students coming from marginalised backgrounds'. Such a law becomes crucial in an education system where, according to her, 'student suicides among marginalised communities highlight the disproportionate discrimination faced by them'. She claims that there is a pattern of structural exclusion and systematic discrimination against Dalit and Adivasi students, and that this legislation is important to create a 'safer academic environment' for them. But critics also raise questions of political motivation and appropriation of the long-fought struggles of activists like Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi in creating an equitable and safe educational space by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress. According to the UNHRC special rapporteurs, the draft law has the potential to make effective changes – but this can only be realised if such expert criticism and recommendations are taken into account and the drafting process becomes more publicly participatory. Tamoghna Chakraborty is an intern at The Wire. If you know someone – a friend or a family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. The TeleManas helpline, a government helpline, functions 24×7, its numbers are 1-800 891-4416 or 14416. You could also take them to the nearest hospital.
