Context:

• India faces one of the world’s gravest pollution crises, with 83 of the top 100 most polluted global cities.
• Amid this deteriorating environmental scenario, the Supreme Court’s recent decision (2:1 verdict on Nov 18, 2025) to allow post-facto environmental clearances has triggered deep concern regarding environmental governance and constitutional rights under Article 21.

Background - The Pollution Emergency:

• Delhi’s toxic air leads to children losing lung function before age 10.
• Farmers in Punjab and Haryana inhaling carcinogenic particulates annually in winters.
• Cities witnessing an overload of respiratory
• Therefore, environmental safeguards are not procedural formalities but life-saving protections.

 The Supreme Court’s Reversal:

• Earlier position: In the Vanashakti vs Union of India (May 2025), post-facto environmental clearances declared outright illegal.
• Recent judgment:
  • SC recalls Vanashakti judgment.
  • Allows retrospective clearances for “permissible activities” under existing regulatory frameworks.
  • It is seen as an erosion of the principle of prior environmental clearance.
• Implications of recent judgment:
  • It provides legal amnesty to violators, and undermines preventive environmental governance.
  • It contradicts the constitutional right to clean the environment under Article 21.

Why Prior Environmental Clearance Matters?

• It is derived from Right to Life (Article 21), and includes clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment.
• Hence, prevention, not post-damage remediation, is the foundation of environmental law, and post-facto approvals reward violators and discourage compliance.

Systemic Dilution of Environmental Safeguards (Five Key Examples):

• Draft EIA Notification 2020 and 2021 OM:
  • The Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2020 (along with an Office Memorandum of 2021), attempted to institutionalise post-facto clearances.
  • Reduced compliance reporting, public participation, and expanded the list of industries exempt from EIA.
  • The SC’s current judgment dangerously echoes this framework that was widely criticised as pro-industry, anti-environment.
• Amendments to Forest Conservation Act (FCA):
  • It narrowed the definition of “forest land”, and excluded lands earlier protected under T.N. Godavarman jurisprudence (1996).
  • It allowed strategic/linear projects to bypass safeguards - increased diversion of forests, especially in tribal northeast (NE) India.
• Sectoral exemptions:
  • Coal, oil and gas, and construction pushed into lower-regulation categories.
  • For instance, projects classified under “B2” categories require no EIA, no public hearing, and minimal environmental oversight.
  • This has enabled a range of mining and industrial activities to bypass the most important safeguard — public consultation — core to environmental democracy.
• Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2018:
  • It significantly weakened protections for fragile coastal ecosystems, allowing construction closer to shorelines.
  • Ecologically fragile coasts, already facing erosion, rising sea levels, and cyclones, were effectively handed over for commercial exploitation at a time when global climate risks demand increased protection, not deregulation.
• Fast-tracking clearances:
  • Rubber-stamp expert committees cleared over 95% projects (in the last decade) with minimal scrutiny/field verification - turning a safeguard mechanism into a clearance factory.
  • Public hearings have been curtailed or undermined, reducing affected communities to mere spectators in decisions affecting their survival.

Challenges and Way Ahead:

• Court decision emboldens non-compliance - Ensure judicial review remains a bulwark against environmental dilution.
• Weakens deterrence against polluting industries - Reinforce prior environmental clearance as an inviolable principle.
• Erodes public trust in regulatory institutions - Strengthen EIA processes with mandatory public hearings.
• Increased ecological degradation in forests, coasts, tribal areas - Restore broadened definition of forests and safeguard ecological hotspots.
• Conflict between economic expediency and environmental justice - Reform expert appraisal committees for transparency and accountability. Align national regulations with global climate commitments and SDGs.

Conclusion:

• The SC’s approval of post-facto environmental clearances marks a troubling departure from India’s progressive environmental jurisprudence.
• In a country where millions breathe toxic air and ecological degradation is rampant, weakening preventive safeguards threatens constitutional rights and intergenerational equity.
• History may judge this moment as a turning point when environmental protection gave way to administrative convenience—unless corrective steps are taken urgently.