Overview The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns on 26 March 2026 about the practice of granting post‑facto environmental clearance . A three‑judge bench examined writ petitions challenging an Office Memorandum that allowed such projects to continue until the State intervened. Key Developments Justice Bagchi warned that treating prior clearance as non‑negotiable would compel authorities to stop any unauthorised activity immediately. The Court contrasted two regulatory outcomes: (a) mandatory prior clearance → automatic shutdown of illegal work; (b) OM regime → projects may operate until a closure order is issued. Union’s ASG Aishwarya Bhati argued the OM does not grant regularisation but merely brings projects under expert appraisal, imposing remediation and penalties. NGO counsel Srishti Agnihotri contended that any blanket post‑facto framework undermines the purpose of the EIA Notification, 2006 and encourages a ‘seek‑forgiveness‑instead‑of‑permission’ mindset. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant , noted that the mechanism could be viewed as expanding environmental jurisprudence, but the Court will continue hearing the matter. Important Facts • The case is W.P.(C) No. 1394/2023 (Diary No. 50009/2023) titled Vanashakti v. Union of India . • The Court recalled its earlier order that prohibited retrospective environmental approvals. • The OM proposes closure of impermissible activities, imposition of penalties, and prospective clearance from the date of grant for permissible projects. • The Union is open to introducing additional safeguards if the Court deems them necessary. UPSC Relevance Understanding this dispute is vital for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Environment) because: It illustrates the constitutional balance between Article 142 powers and statutory environmental regimes. The debate highlights the principle of prior environmental clearance as a tool for sustainable development and public participation. It underscores the role of judicial activism in enforcing environmental law, a recurring theme in past UPSC questions. Way Forward • The Court may issue specific directions under Article 142 to tighten the OM or declare post‑facto clearances unconstitutional. • Legislators could amend the EIA Notification to close loopholes and introduce stricter penalties. • Administrative agencies should ensure uniform implementation of the OM, if retained, to avoid selective enforcement. • Civil‑society groups must continue monitoring compliance and advocating for genuine public participation in environmental decision‑making.