The Supreme Court on July 29, 2026 upheld the practice of granting clearances after a project is already built. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, quashed the 2021 Office Memorandum but left open the possibility for the Centre to legalise violations through a statutory notification. This decision highlights a growing gap between state‑level environmental appraisal and central law.
Key Developments
- The Court dismissed the 2021 Office Memorandum that barred post‑construction approvals.
- It allowed the Centre to regularise unauthorised projects via a notification, effectively creating a legal pathway for environmental amnesty schemes.
- Existing penalties are now limited to fines after the Jan Vishwas amendments removed imprisonment for environmental lapses.
Important Facts
The core rule of the EIA regime is that a project must be assessed before any ground is broken. The Court’s order, however, treats post‑fact clearance as a procedural exception rather than a violation.
State agencies, expert committees and pollution boards often discover violations only after highways, ports or steel plants are operational. This makes retroactive approval a design feature rather than an outlier.
The Court argued that governments could frame amnesty schemes similar to tax regularisation, but environmental damage differs fundamentally from fiscal defaults.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this judgment is vital for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Environment) papers. It illustrates:
- Judicial interpretation of environmental