3 min readJul 31, 2026 06:00 AM IST First published on: Jul 31, 2026 at 06:00 AM ISTIndia’s Environmental Impact Assessment is grounded in the precautionary principle — it prioritises the integrity of ecosystems over minimising harm or compensating for damage later. From 2017, the government has tried to dilute this safeguard by allowing developers to apply for ecological clearance after commencing a project. A notification issued that year provided a one-time window to defaulters to comply with due procedures. It inaugurated a regime of post-facto clearances, which was consolidated in 2021 when the Centre issued an Office Memorandum (OM) to regularise violations. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court set aside this OM and closed the door on blanket regularisation of projects that have not complied with environmental safeguards. However, the Court also departed from its May 2025 position that prohibited ex-post facto environmental clearances “in any form”. Instead, it held that a “narrowly tailored amnesty scheme” may be permissible where it is justified by “public interest”.The judgment is significant because it clarifies the Court’s own position on post-facto environmental clearances. In its 2020 decision in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Rohit Prajapati, the SC held that retrospective clearances are contrary to the philosophy of environmental regulation. The May 2025 verdict reiterated that such relaxations would incentivise developers to violate the law first and seek regularisation later. However, the Court appeared to move in the opposite direction six months later. Following review petitions filed by the Centre and industry bodies, a three-judge bench recalled the May 2025 judgment.AdvertisementWednesday’s verdict now places the onus on the government to make a reasoned selection of projects that may be excused from the requirement of environmental clearance. The Court’s insistence on proportionality is consistent with the broader trajectory of environmental jurisprudence in India. For more than two decades, the SC has interpreted constitutional provisions expansively to affirm that a healthy environment is intrinsic to the right to life. In the same vein, it has now required the state to demonstrate that the public interest served by a project is sufficiently compelling, that any relaxation is strictly necessary, and that the environmental costs have been weighed against the anticipated public benefits. The verdict thus transforms what had become an open-ended administrative discretion under the post-2017 regime into a narrowly circumscribed constitutional exception. The flexibility recognised by the Court could prove valuable in cases involving national defence, when healthcare facilities are urgently needed in underserved areas, or highway projects become imperative to improve connectivity in remote regions. However, at a time of climate change and accelerating ecological degradation, the government, too, must recognise that environmental protection is an integral component of public interest.