In order to emphasise that development cannot compromise environmental protections, the Supreme Court revoked earlier environmental clearances

Retrospective environmental approvals

These are permits awarded to industrial or infrastructure initiatives following the start of operations or construction, circumventing the legal obligation for an environmental assessment beforehand.

The 2006 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, requires obtaining prior EC before starting any project that could impact the environment.

Decision by the Supreme Court

The Court deemed the 2017 notification and 2021 Office Memorandum that allowed these clearances as illegal and not in line with constitutional mandates, thus rendering them invalid.

The judgment referenced Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to exist in a pollution-free environment.

Emphasizing Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, the ruling reinforced the responsibilities of both the state and citizens in safeguarding the environment.

Constitutional Protections

– Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Article 48A of the Constitution instructs the State to preserve and enhance the environment as well as to protect the forests and wildlife within the nation.

– Fundamental Duties: Article 51A(g) mandates citizens to “safeguard and enhance the natural environment, which includes forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, while showing kindness to all living beings.”

Importance of Supreme Court decision

Guardians of ecological rights: The Supreme Court's ruling exemplifies judicial activism aimed at promoting environmental justice.

Function of the Polluter Pays Principle: The decision implicitly supports the Polluter Pays Principle, since individuals who pollute without permission cannot receive legal protection.