No more dilution

 In a landmark judgment delivered on May 16, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which had paved the way for ex-post facto environmental clearances. The verdict is a necessary and long-overdue assertion of the constitutional principle that the right to a healthy environment is inseparable from the right to life under Article 21.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), mandated under the 2006 notification, are not bureaucratic formalities — they are essential safeguards meant to ensure that industrial projects do not recklessly endanger ecosystems, public health, and the long-term sustainability of natural resources. The 2017 notification, cloaked as a “one-time amnesty”, opened the floodgates for routine regularisation of illegal projects. It not only subverted due process but legitimised a culture of impunity. The 2021 Office Memorandum institutionalised this malpractice, turning post-facto clearances from exception to norm.

The Supreme Court’s scathing indictment — that the government went “out of its way to protect those who harm the environment” — reflects deep institutional concern over the erosion of environmental rule of law. This judgment is not an isolated rebuke. In Common Cause vs Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals vsRohitPrajapati (2020), the apex court had already made it clear that post-facto clearances were an “anathema” to environmental jurisprudence. Yet, successive administrations chose to overlook this wisdom in favour of ease-of-doing-business mantras.

The fallout has been predictably disastrous. As per credible analyses, over 50 projects — including mines, cement plants, and steel factories — received retroactive approvals without adequate scrutiny. This is not just a regulatory lapse; it is a betrayal of public trust and a denial of environmental justice, especially for the poor and marginalised who often bear the brunt of unchecked industrial activity.

The Court has once again reminded the executive that ecology and economy are not adversaries. The false binary between development and sustainability has allowed vested interests to dismantle environmental protections under the guise of progress. True development must be equitable, participatory, and ecologically sound.

Going forward, policymakers must abandon the short-sighted view that environmental norms are roadblocks. Instead, regulatory diligence must be institutionalised as a foundational pillar of development planning. The apex court has drawn the line. It is now up to the government to respect it — and restore credibility to India’s environmental governance.