The Supreme Court on Thursday asked lawyers to act as “responsible citizens” and while posting the matter for hearing on Monday, challenged the decision to uphold ex-post grant of environmental clearance (EC) for development projects.
Supreme Court of India. (PTI)Following its November 18, 2025, judgment reviving the Centre’s 2017 and 2021 notifications that grant environmental clearance to projects after commencement of work, the court listed original petitions challenging these notifications along with petitions filed by project developers seeking relief under the November judgment.
“We will take up these matters on Monday,” a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, indicating that it would first decide the pleas seeking the benefit of the apex court judgment upholding the 2017 and 2021 notifications.
However, NGO Banashakti, the main petitioner challenging the notifications, argued that the November 18 order was passed by a three-judge bench by a 2:1 majority in a review petition against a two-judge bench’s May 16, 2025 judgment that set aside the same notifications. The ruling in May stated that ex-post facto is contrary to EC environmental jurisprudence.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Vanashakti, said, “The order of the three-judge bench requires consideration. Perhaps erroneously, the order makes a finding on merits on the underlying issues which have nothing to argue in this petition on merits.”
More Read
He claimed that the review petition filed by CREDAI, an umbrella body of real estate developers, was limited to examining whether the May 2025 judgment correctly interpreted the law in the light of past precedents. “The order came on the merits that if the judgment is allowed to be executed, it will lead to demolition of the structure, which cannot be allowed,” he said.
A bench comprising Justices Jayamalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi observed, “When revision is granted, the earlier order becomes operative.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for some public projects for revival under the 2017 and 2021 notifications, said, “What he is seeking is a review of a review order. That cannot be possible.”
The bench observed, “You are not just an officer of this court but a responsible citizen of this country. Let us see the consequences that the nation will suffer.” Addressing the concerns raised against the November judgment, it added, “There should not be a view that there is no precedent in the judgments passed by us or that courts are giving inconsistent orders.”
More Read
At the same time, the court warned, “standing before the highest court in the land, we must also minimize the chance of making any mistakes that would have a chilling effect on environmental law.”
Mehta submitted that irrespective of divergent judgments, applications filed by states and public and private bodies for revival of projects must be considered. He said the three-judge bench concluded that the May 2025 judgment did not create sound law and ignored previous precedents upholding the validity of the ex-post EC.
Appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate P Wilson urged the court to consider public interest, saying an 11,000-bed hospital in the state was stalled after an ex-post facto EC stay and later annulled by the May judgment, which has now been revived.
The majority view in the November judgment, delivered by then CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, had reinstated the March 2017 and July 2021 notifications. It noted that the cost of public infrastructure projects including hospitals, airports and waste treatment plants ₹20,000 crore to be disbanded if review is not allowed. Justice Bhuiyan dissented in a separate opinion upholding the earlier judgment in May.
The majority also observed that the 2021 notification was issued after the National Green Tribunal directed the Center to frame a standard operating procedure for projects that had failed to apply for EC under the 2017 notification. It pointed to “serious consequences” flowing from the May 2025 judgment, noting that the 2017 and 2021 notifications had provided for the imposition of substantial penalties. However, it added that if the May ruling is allowed to stand, “thousands of crores will be wasted.”
