The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition filed by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh challenging ex-post facto environmental clearance, terming the plea filed for “media publicity” and threatening to impose exemplary costs. The former Union Environment Minister later withdrew his plea.
Veteran Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. (Sanchu Khanna/HT Photo)A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Jayamalya Bagchi observed that the petition effectively sought to challenge the three-judge bench judgment delivered by a 2:1 majority on 20 November 2025, which upheld the approval of ex-post facto environmental clearance.
“You are filing it only for media publicity,” the bench remarked.
Appearing for Ramesh, his lawyer argued that the November 20 judgment examined only two government notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in 2017 and 2021. He claimed that the present petition challenged a separate notification issued by the Center in January 2026-2026.
“Why don’t you directly say that you yourself are challenging the November 20 judgment. We know what your design is. Be prepared for exemplary costs,” the bench said.
More Read
The court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, observing: “If you are aggrieved by the judgment, you know that your remedy is to file a review petition. Instead you challenge the government order issued after our judgment in a writ petition. Is it possible to review our judgment through a writ petition. This petition is not maintainable.”
After the court’s comments, Ramesh’s counsel agreed to withdraw the plea and seek other remedies. The bench recorded, “Counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal with liberty to seek other legal remedies. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn.”
In November last year, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, overturned a May 16, 2025 judgment of a two-judge bench that had quashed the March 2017 and July 2021 MoEFCC notifications allowing a project to get environmental clearance (EC) after starting it. The May 2025 judgment held that such ex-post facto EC was unknown to environmental jurisprudence and reinstated the requirement of an earlier EC.
More Read
The May 2025 verdict concerned the fate of several projects under construction or nearing completion. Subsequently, CREDAI, an umbrella body of real estate developers, filed a review petition against that decision. The matter was heard by a three-judge bench comprising then CJI BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuiyan and K Vinod Chandran.
In the majority opinion, CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran relied on earlier judgments, which allowed post-facto EC. Reviving the 2017 and 2021 notifications, the majority pointed out that public infrastructure projects – including hospitals, airports and waste treatment plants – are valuable. ₹20,000 crore would face destruction if the review is not allowed. Justice Bhuiyan dissented, delivering a separate and detailed opinion upholding the decision of the previous two-judge bench of which he was a part.
The majority also said the 2021 MoEFCC notification was issued after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the Center to formulate a standard operating procedure for projects that failed to apply for EC under the 2017 notification. It highlighted the “serious consequences” of allowing the May 2025 judgment to stand, noting that the 2017 and 2021 notifications provided for the imposition of substantial penalties. On the other hand, if the judgment goes into effect in May 2025, “thousands of crores will be wasted”.
