E-Paper
SC slams Jairam Ramesh, rejects plea on post-facto green clearances
The SC bench observed that the petition effectively sought to challenge a three-judge bench judgment delivered by a 2:1 majority on November 20, 2025.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition filed by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh challenging the grant of ex-post facto environmental clearance, terming the plea as one filed for “media publicity” and threatening to impose exemplary costs. The former Union environment minister subsequently withdrew his petition.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petition effectively sought to challenge a three-judge bench judgment delivered by a 2:1 majority on November 20, 2025, which upheld the grant of ex-post facto environmental clearance.
“You are filing this only for media publicity,” the bench remarked.
Appearing for Ramesh, his counsel argued that the November 20 judgment had examined only two government notifications issued by the ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC) in 2017 and 2021. He contended that the present petition also challenged a separate notification issued by the Centre in January 2026 to give effect to the November 20 ruling.
“Why don’t you say it directly that you are challenging the November 20 judgment itself. We know what your design is. Be ready for exemplary costs,” the bench said.
The court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, observing: “If you are aggrieved with a judgment, you know your remedy is to file a review petition. Instead you challenge the government order issued after our judgment in a writ petition. Is it possible to seek a review of our judgment through a writ petition. This petition is not maintainable.”
Following the court’s remarks, Ramesh’s counsel agreed to withdraw the petition and seek other remedies. The bench recorded, “The counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw with liberty to avail other legal remedies. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn.”
In November last year, a three-judge bench had, by a 2:1 majority, reversed a May 16, 2025 judgment of a two-judge bench that had quashed the March 2017 and July 2021 MoEFCC notifications allowing environmental clearance (EC) to be obtained after commencement of a project. The May 2025 ruling had held that such ex-post facto EC was unknown to environmental jurisprudence and restored the requirement of prior EC.
The May 2025 judgment had raised concerns over the fate of several projects that were under construction or nearing completion. Subsequently, CREDAI, an umbrella body of real estate developers, filed a review petition against that decision. The matter was heard by a three-judge bench comprising then CJI BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran.
In the majority opinion, CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran set aside the earlier ruling, relying on prior judgments that permitted post-facto EC. Reviving the 2017 and 2021 notifications, the majority noted that public infrastructure projects—including hospitals, airports and effluent treatment plants—worth ₹20,000 crore would face demolition if the review was not allowed. Justice Bhuyan dissented, delivering a separate and detailed opinion supporting the earlier two-judge bench decision of which he had been a part.
The majority also observed that the 2021 MoEFCC notification had been issued after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the Centre to frame a standard operating procedure for projects that had failed to apply for EC under the 2017 notification. It highlighted the “serious consequences” of allowing the May 2025 judgment to stand, noting that the 2017 and 2021 notifications provided for the imposition of substantial penalties. On the other hand, if the May 2025 ruling were to operate, “thousands of crores of rupees would go to waste”.
