In a significant reversal, the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, recalled its May 16 judgment that had prohibited the granting of post-facto environmental clearances (ECs) for public projects. This decision provides substantial relief to both Union and state governments, potentially unlocking numerous infrastructure and development projects.
The May 16 ruling had directed the demolition of public projects worth ₹20,000 crore that had been granted ex-post facto ECs after penalties were paid. The Steel Authority of India and the Karnataka government sought a recall of the SC judgment, arguing that it mandated halting and demolishing projects, even those already operational, despite penalties.
A three-judge bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, reached a 2-1 majority in favor of recalling the judgment. CJI Gavai, in the majority opinion, emphasized that failing to recall the judgment would result in the demolition of buildings and projects funded by ₹20,000 crore of public money. He cited examples such as AIIMS in Odisha, a greenfield airport in Karnataka, and a large effluent treatment plant. CREDAI also highlighted that several of its projects faced a similar predicament. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented details of 24 central projects worth ₹8,293 crore awaiting approval and 29 state projects worth ₹11,169 crore delayed due to a lack of clearance.
CJI Gavai pointed out a contradiction in the May 16 judgment, which allowed mining companies to suspend operations, seek post-facto ECs, and resume operations after paying compensation, while simultaneously ordering the demolition of public projects with ex-post facto ECs. The court also noted that a 2013 notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) had provisions for environmental clearances with penalties.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, asserting that there is no legal basis for retrospective environmental clearances. He stated that ex-post facto ECs are "anathema" to environmental law and contradict the precautionary principle and the need for sustainable development. Justice Bhuyan argued that judgments like D Swamy vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board deviated from precedents set in Common Cause (2018) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2020), which deemed post-facto ECs impermissible. He also rejected the argument that demolishing properties would add to pollution.
The May 2025 judgment had struck down the environment ministry's 2017 notification and 2021 OM, which permitted ex-post facto environmental clearances, deeming them per incuriam (oversight of precedent) and not in the public interest. The court, at that time, had also restrained the government from issuing such clearances in the future, emphasizing the importance of prior green nods for sustainable development. However, existing clearances granted under these measures remain unaffected.
The recall order has sparked debate, with some experts raising concerns about potential environmental repercussions. Justice Bhuyan, in his dissent, said that the review judgment is a step in retrogression. However, the majority opinion, authored by CJI Gavai, argued that the earlier verdict conflicted with previous SC decisions and could lead to the demolition of welfare and infrastructure projects worth over ₹20,000 crore. The detailed judgment is awaited.
