Review of the Supreme Court Judgment in CREDAI vs Vanashakti
The Supreme Court of India, on November 18, 2025, reviewed and recalled its previous judgment from May in the case of CREDAI vs Vanashakti. The initial judgment declared that notifications allowing ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) were illegal. This decision was significant as it emphasized the enforcement of environmental laws. However, the Court has now revised this stance, asserting that retrospective ECs can, in some cases, serve public interest. This shift has been met with dissent, notably from Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Original Judgment and Its Rationale
- The original ruling, authored by Justice A.S. Oka, rejected the 2017 and 2021 notifications which permitted retrospective ECs.
- It emphasized the necessity of prior ECs as a central element of India's environmental laws, designed to prevent ecological harm.
- The judgment referenced past decisions and international standards, including the precautionary principle and the Stockholm Conference of 1972.
- Key cases cited include Common Cause vs Union of India (2017) and the M.C. Mehta cases, which underscored the importance of pre-emptive environmental scrutiny.
Issues with the Review Judgment
- The review judgment attempts to justify retrospective clearances through circular reasoning, suggesting that halting projects for lack of prior ECs would harm public welfare.
- This shift from principle to expediency undermines the enforcement of environmental regulations and sets a precedent for non-compliance.
- Dissent from Justice Bhuyan highlights the inconsistencies and retrogressive nature of the majority opinion.
Implications for Environmental Governance
- The judgment weakens the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, reducing public participation, expert appraisal, and scientific evaluation to mere formalities.
- Compliance is de-emphasized, weakening regulatory enforcement and deterrence.
- The ruling sends a troubling signal in an era of escalating climate change and environmental fragility.
The Court's decision to revise its stance on retrospective ECs poses a challenge to the credibility of India's rule of law and raises concerns about the future of environmental governance. It highlights a need for the Court to reassess the issues surrounding the validity of the notifications and the broader implications for environmental accountability.
