The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in the review petition filed in the Vanashakti case concerning the grant of retrospective environmental clearances (EC).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi heard the matter before reserving its verdict.
The case stemmed from the November 2025 judgment of the apex court allowing retrospective ECs.
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 judgment was passed on a review petition 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.
Vanashakti then filed the present review petition against the verdict.
They opposed any regime that permits retrospective clearances, contending that prior environmental clearance is a substantive safeguard under the law.
They argued that executive instructions cannot be used to regularise violations and cautioned against reducing environmental jurisprudence to a compensatory mechanism.
On the other hand, the Central government argued that a blanket prohibition on post facto clearances was not workable in practice and had led to the stalling of several ongoing projects. It was submitted that the existing framework was designed to ensure deterrence through penalties, remediation and compliance measures, while allowing projects that are otherwise permissible to be brought within the regulatory regime.
During the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati defended the Centre’s regulatory framework, submitting that it was not a mechanism to legitimise violations but to deter them while bringing errant projects within the fold of environmental law.
Responding to a query from Justice Bagchi, Bhati submitted that the framework was intended to stop continuing violations while ensuring that projects are regulated.
She emphasised that environmental clearance is not guaranteed in all cases and that projects found to be impermissible would be closed, while even permissible projects must meet sustainability requirements or face consequences.
[Read Live Coverage]