The Supreme Court on 29 July 2026 invalidated the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that allowed projects to obtain environmental clearance after they had already started. The judgment restores the primacy of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 and limits any future amnesty to narrowly‑tailored, time‑bound schemes.
Key Developments
- Three‑judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that the 2021 Office Memorandum created an unlawful perpetual regime of ex post facto environmental clearance.
- The Court upheld the 2017 one‑time amnesty notification as valid, but stressed it must be limited to projects of "supervening public interest" and subject to strict conditions.
- Retrospective clearances already granted remain valid unless individually challenged; no new applications will be entertained.
- The Centre may issue future amnesty schemes only under Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and must satisfy proportionality, sustainable development and deterrence tests.
- The Court retained its power to grant relief under Article 142 in exceptional cases.
Important Facts
Projects that sought retrospective clearance span highways, airports, mining, steel plants, common effluent treatment plants and large real‑estate developments, amounting to nearly ₹20,000 crore of public investment. The 2021 Office Memorandum had no cut‑off date, effectively turning a one‑off amnesty into a standing rule. Earlier, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2023 attempted to de‑criminalise violations but did not address the systemic loophole.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this judgment is vital for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Environment) papers. It illustrates the balance between the precautionary principle and the need for pragmatic remediation of already‑built infrastructure. The case also highlights the limits of executive orders under delegated legislation, a recurring theme in constitutional law.
Way Forward
Future governments should craft amnesty notifications that are:
- Time‑bound and limited to projects that serve a clear public purpose.
- Subject to rigorous impact assessment, compensation and supervised remediation.
- Coupled with deterrent penalties for officials who allow violations of the prior clearance regime.
Strengthening the capacity of State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities and ensuring early public participation can reduce the need for post‑facto regularisation. For UPSC aspirants, tracking how courts interpret environmental statutes will aid answer writing on sustainable development, judicial activism and administrative law.