The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh challenging the grant of retrospective facto environmental clearances (EC).
During the hearing, a bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petition appeared to be aimed more at attracting public attention than addressing a legal grievance.
“All this is just for media publicity,” said CJI Kant.
The bench also questioned the approach of raising review grounds through a writ petition since the plea effectively challenged November 2025 judgment of the apex court allowing retrospective ECs.
The Court today opined that the proper course of action would have been to file a review petition against the verdict of the Court instead of a writ petition.
The Court warned Ramesh that it will impose costs on him.
“Why did you not file a review? You are just raising all these grounds in writ. In a writ, how can you seek review of a judgment and if you do then be ready to face exemplary costs,” CJI Kant said.
Following the observations, Ramesh’s counsel requested to withdraw the plea.
“I wish to withdraw the plea my lord.”
The court allowed the same, adding,
“Allowed to withdraw with liberty to follow remedy as per law.”
Ramesh's plea challenged the practice of granting environmental clearances to projects after construction or work had already begun, arguing that such approvals are unlawful, detrimental to public health, and undermine governance.
In an X post, in late January he said,
"Encouraged by the Supreme Court’s review on Dec 29th 2025 of an earlier verdict on the redefinition of the Aravallis, I have just filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging ex post facto environmental clearances."
He contended that ex post facto clearances bypass proper environmental procedures and put communities at risk.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of ex post facto environmental clearances.
Under the 2006 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) rules, projects must get environmental approval before starting any construction or activity.
However, government notifications in 2017 and 2021 allowed some projects that had already begun without approval to seek retrospective clearances, a move challenged in court for weakening mandatory environmental safeguards.
In the case of Vanashakti v. Union of India, the Supreme Court in May 2025 struck down the practice, ruling that no project can legally start without prior approval and that retrospective clearances violate both environmental law and constitutional principles.
By that verdict, the Court quashed a 2017 notification and 2021 Office Memorandum that permitted retrospective grant of ECs.
However, in November 2025, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court allowed a review petition against the May 2025 decision thereby, reviving retrospective ECs.
The is judgment was passed on a review petition was moved by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI), arguing that the judgment caused significant hardship to real estate industry and interdependent sectors.
The three-judge Bench then diluted its earlier judgment and held that public projects of ₹20,000 crore will have to be demolished if EC is not revived, and also said that such demolitions would add to further pollution.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who was part of the three-judge Bench, had rendered a strong dissenting verdict.
[Read Live Coverage]