Vanashakti Case

The Vanashakti case was filed by the environmental NGO Vanashakti, challenging the legality of retrospective (post-facto) environmental clearances (ECs) granted to industrial and construction projects. The petition particularly targeted projects in eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) surrounding the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary and parts of the Western Ghats corridor. These clearances were argued to undermine the principle of prior environmental assessment, as mandated under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notifications of 1994 and 2006.

Original May 2025 Judgment

In May 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a ruling with the following key outcomes:

• Reinforcement of Prior EC Requirement: The Court declared that no project can start without obtaining prior environmental clearance, making post-facto ECs illegal.

• Invalidation of Government Notifications: The judgment struck down government mechanisms that allowed retrospective ECs, including:

  • MoEFCC 2017 Notification: Allowed violators to apply for retrospective clearance within six months.

  • Office Memorandum 2021: Extended the period for violators to regularize breaches by paying penalties.

• Reasoning: The Court emphasized that retrospective clearances defeat the preventive purpose of environmental law, which is intended to prevent ecological harm before it occurs, rather than accommodating it after the fact.

Recent 2025 Revisit by the Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited the May 2025 judgment in a 2:1 majority decision, allowing the possibility of retrospective environmental clearances, citing public interest as justification.

Implications of the Revisit:

• Weakening of Preventive Principles: The decision undermines the core principle of prior environmental assessment.

• Dilution of Enforcement: Projects that violate environmental regulations can now legally regularize their actions, reducing accountability.

• Long-term Ecological Risk: Retrospective ECs may compromise sustainability and weaken the deterrent effect of environmental law.

Significance

The Vanashakti case highlights the tension between environmental protection and retrospective leniency. While the Court’s recent decision may address short-term economic or public interest considerations, it weakens the effectiveness of India’s environmental governance and opens the door for future violations to be legitimized retroactively

Recent Reversal by the Supreme Court

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India recently revisited the Vanashakti ruling. The Court held that “judicial restraint must be exercised in matters of policy implementation where statutory frameworks already exist,” while emphasizing that ecological protection remains crucial.

Key points of the reversal:

• Restoration of Certain Environmental Clearances: ECs that complied with EIA norms post-2020 were reinstated, provided that projects include biodiversity offset measures and annual ecological audits.

• Monitoring Mechanism: Restoration and monitoring directives remain in force but are now under the oversight of the MoEFCC’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) instead of an independent state committee as previously proposed.

Justice Bhuyan’s Dissent

Justice Bhuyan dissented, emphasizing the spirit of environmental law:

• Preventive Principle: Environmental laws are designed to anticipate and prevent harm, not excuse violations after the fact.

• Judicial Progress: He warned that replacing preventive scrutiny with retrospective regularization undermines decades of judicial advances in environmental protection.

• Reference to Past Judgments:

  • Common Cause vs Union of India (2017): Retrospective ECs are detrimental to the environment.

  • MC Mehta cases: Reaffirmed that prior approvals are mandatory, even for project renewals.

Environmental Regulation in India

Legal and Institutional Framework

1. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides the central government authority to take comprehensive measures for environmental protection.

2. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 & Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Establish regulatory bodies such as the Central and State Pollution Control Boards.

3. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 & Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Govern forest management and biodiversity conservation.

4. EIA Notification, 2006: Mandates environmental impact assessments for large-scale projects.

Key Agencies:

• MoEFCC: Nodal agency for policy-making and implementation.

• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Specialized judicial body for environmental disputes.

Judicial Oversight and Recent Shifts

• Constitutional Basis: Right to a clean and healthy environment is part of Article 21.

• Principles Recognized by Courts:

  • Precautionary Principle – acting in advance to prevent environmental harm.

  • Polluter Pays Principle – violators bear the cost of damage.

  • Intergenerational Equity – protecting resources for future generations.

  • Sustainable Development – balancing development and ecological protection.

Recent Shift: While the Supreme Court has historically emphasized preventive scrutiny and accountability, the recent reversal reflects a trend towards leniency and policy deference, especially where statutory frameworks exist, albeit with conditions like ecological audits and biodiversity measures.

Implications of the Review Judgment

Weakening of the EIA Process

The review judgment risks reducing public hearings and expert reviews to mere formalities, stripping the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process of its preventive power.

Normalization of Violations

Project proponents may begin to ignore EC requirements, anticipating that any violations can later be regularized through fines, creating a culture of non-compliance.

Regulatory Paralysis

The state’s authority to enforce environmental laws is weakened, and the deterrent effect of regulatory oversight diminishes, reducing accountability.

Crisis of Judicial Credibility

The reversal could undermine public faith in the Supreme Court’s commitment to environmental justice and the rule of law.

Other Implications

• Revisits the role of High Courts in enforcing ecological norms beyond statutory limits.

• Highlights the tension between judicial oversight and policy implementation, particularly in balancing conservation and development.

• May influence pending cases related to mangrove protection and eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) notifications across India.

• Signals a shift toward centralized ecological governance, reducing the leverage of NGOs in regional environmental litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s review in CREDAI vs Vanashakti represents a regressive moment in India’s environmental jurisprudence. It signals that economic expediency may take precedence over ecological prudence, eroding decades of progress in building a preventive and participatory environmental regime.