Retrospective environmental clearances struck down by Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that administrative orders cannot be used to regularise projects that began construction or operations without prior environmental clearance.
- Environmental clearance must precede project commencement.
- Retrospective clearance undermines the Environmental Impact Assessment process.
- It violates the precautionary principle and the right to a clean environment under Article 21.
- The Court linked environmental governance with Articles 14 and 21.
- Any future amnesty, if permitted, must come through a proper statutory notification, be exceptional and time-bound, and impose deterrent penalties.
- Personal liability of officials/promoters may be necessary to prevent deliberate violations.
- Retrospective approvals create a “violate first, regularise later” model. This weakens:
- Public consultation
- Scientific impact assessment
- Protection of forests, wetlands and tribal livelihoods
- Rule of law
- Accountability of industries and regulators
- The Court allowed the 2021 Office Memorandum to operate for certain ongoing projects to avoid disruption, but barred the use of such a route for future violations.
- Strengthen regional environmental authorities.
- Improve compliance monitoring using satellite imagery and GIS.
- Publish real-time consent and compliance data.
- Impose restoration costs, not merely monetary fines.
- Fix personal accountability on officials who knowingly permit violations.
- Mains angle: Environmental clearance is not a post-facto licensing formality; it is a preventive governance mechanism.
GyanGram