Supreme Court Dismisses Jairam Ramesh's Petition on Environmental Clearances

Supreme Court's Ruling on Environmental Clearances

On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition submitted by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, challenging the government's choice to issue environmental clearances for projects that had already commenced, as reported by a legal news source.

A panel consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns regarding the legitimacy of the writ petition, noting that the court had previously endorsed the policy in November after overturning a ruling from May that prohibited such clearances.

In a split decision of 2:1 in November, the court reversed its May ruling that deemed retrospective environmental approvals unlawful. The majority opinion indicated that the earlier decision could have necessitated the demolition of numerous buildings and public infrastructure that had received ex post facto clearances over time.

At that time, Chief Justice BR Gavai remarked that many of these projects were valued at over Rs 20,000 crore, and dismantling them would likely result in greater environmental damage.

During Thursday's proceedings, the court questioned the intent behind the petition, suggesting it was akin to an indirect request for a review of its prior ruling, as reported by a legal news source.

“If you are dissatisfied with the ruling, you are aware of your options,” the bench was quoted as saying. “How can a review of a ruling be sought through a writ petition?”

“Is this for media attention?” the chief justice inquired, cautioning that the court might impose significant costs on such petitions.

Subsequently, Ramesh's legal representative opted to withdraw the writ petition, retaining the right to pursue legal remedies as permitted.

The May ruling had prohibited the Union government from issuing ex post facto clearances to regularize unauthorized constructions.

The court had annulled a 2017 notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum that permitted the government to grant retrospective environmental clearances, labeling these directives as illegal and arbitrary.

Nonetheless, the bench clarified that environmental clearances already granted under the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum would remain valid.