Vanashakti v. Union of India: Analyzing the Supreme Court’s Rejection of Retrospective Environmental Clearances

From the very beginning

The ruling that was recently handed down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vanashakti versus Union of India represents a critical step in the development of environmental legislation in India.

Over the course of several years, certain projects started development without first getting the appropriate environmental licenses, only to afterward request approval for retrospective work.

The principle that environmental safeguards cannot be treated as mere formalities has been reiterated by the Court by its judgment to deem ex-post facto clearances to be inadmissible.

The Beginnings of Environmental Permits and Permissions

According to the environmental regulatory framework in India, any significant industrial or infrastructural project must first acquire prior clearance after completing an in-depth environmental impact assessment.

This is a prerequisite for the project. This method includes a number of different components, including public hearings, reviews from experts, and an in-depth investigation of the potential dangers that could be posed to people, animals, water supplies, and the quality of the air.

In order to ensure that the process of development does not lead to the degradation of the environment beyond the point of repair, it was decided to put this rule into effect.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Putting forth an effort to accomplish the goal of retrospective regularization

In spite of the fact that prior clearance is necessary, the federal government issued a notification in 2017 that made it possible for certain projects to receive clearance after work had already begun. In spite of the fact that prior clearance is required, this was carried out. Following this, in 2021, the office issued a memorandum that extended the time term for regularizing projects that did not comply with the requirements.

This decision was made in response to the previous one. Although these policies were advertised as an amnesty with the idea of assisting industry and public agencies in avoiding lengthy legal battles, critics claimed that they undermined the core purpose of environmental legislation. This was the case despite the fact that they were intended to help industry and public agencies avoid lengthy legal battles.

A petition has been presented by the non-governmental group known as Vanashakti, which is situated in Mumbai. The appeal raises issues about the authenticity of the notification that was issued in 2017 and the memorandum that was issued in 2021. The organization argued that the phrase “prior environmental clearance,” which was repeatedly used in the first guidelines, did not permit approvals to be provided after the fact.

This word was used hundreds of times. They asserted that giving retrospective clearances increased the possibility of individuals who disregarded the law and diminished the level of trust in the overall supervisory apparatus. They thought that this would be a negative outcome.

The Decision that the Supreme Court Makes Regarding

It was on May 16 that a bench of the Supreme Court, which consisted of two judges, handed down their ruling. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made it very obvious that any project that commences work without first seeking environmental clearance is guilty of committing a “gross illegality.”

This was made plain by the clarity with which they stated their position. The notification from 2017 and the memorandum from 2021 were both overturned by the Court. Additionally, the ruling banned the central government from issuing any circulars or instructions in the future that would allow for ex-post facto clearances.

Both of these statements were overruled by the Court. On the other hand, the ruling made certain that the validity of permissions that had already been issued in line with those papers was preserved, so preventing any disruption to projects that had already accomplished the process of regularizing their status.

In the context of environmental issues, strengthening the rule of law

The argument that was presented by the Court emphasized that the concepts of precaution and sustainable development are the foundation upon which environmental law is built. An illustration of this would be the requirement of a public hearing, which is not only a method of checking off a list but rather a significant opportunity for communities who will be affected to voice their concerns.

In the event if organizations were able to grant approval for projects in retrospect, the crucial stages of public involvement and ecological evaluation would be rendered meaningless.

The justices emphasized that retrospective regularization is a kind of sanctioning unauthorized behavior, which alters the balance away from environmental protection and towards unregulated development. This is true since it allows for the possibility of unregulated development.

Those who intentionally violate the law are not eligible for any equity.

There are a number of key issues that are brought to light by this case, one of which is that there is neither legal nor moral equity in favor of those individuals who have purposefully evaded environmental rules.

The member of the bench made the statement that businesses, real estate developers, and public undertakings are all intelligent participants who are fully aware of the duties that they have within their respective communities. When these businesses moved forward without first obtaining approval, they exposed themselves to the risk of suffering damage that could not be undone.

Any argument that stated that issues regarding the economy or infrastructure might be more significant than the duty to maintain environmental safeguards was rejected by the court in its conclusion.

Impact on Upcoming Projects in addition to Those That Are Already Underway

In the short amount of time that passed between the announcement in 2017 and its eventual annulment, numerous projects in a wide range of industries, including as mining, irrigation, and industry, were granted retrospective licenses.

A few of these projects were implemented. There were more than fifty approvals of this kind that were issued prior to the memorandum of 2021 taking into effect, as stated in the reports. As a consequence of the verdict that was handed down by the Supreme Court, projects that are still in operation despite not having received proper pre-clearance are subject to increased examination.

It is now the responsibility of government agencies and commercial developers to ensure that the prior appraisal method is followed to in a stringent manner; otherwise, they run the risk of being subjected to a legal challenge.

The Perspectives of Those Who Formulate Policy

The verdict is intended to serve as a cautionary tale to policymakers, telling them not to take the shortcut of regularizing after the fact. This is one of the roles that the verdict is intended to play. Rather than stifling progress, environmental constraints are in place to guide it in a responsible manner.

This is not the intention of the restrictions. In the event that notifications or memoranda attempt to maneuver around essential procedures, the public’s faith is harmed, and the integrity of the regulatory system is put in jeopardy.

Any attempt to amend the clearance process from this point forward will require vigorous legislative debate rather than administrative fiat. This is because the clearance mechanism is currently in place.

An Importance Concerning Jurisprudence That Is More All-Encompassing

In a number of other cases, the Supreme Court has previously issued declarations that have rejected ex-post facto clearances.

The accomplishments of Vanashakti are a continuation of those earlier declarations. Because of the decisions that have been made in the past, the attempts of the government to regularize projects in line with coastal management and forest conservation legislation have been ineffective in the past.

All of these decisions are united by the notion that environmental governance must adhere to fundamental principles, such as transparency, public engagement, and the precautionary approach. This conviction is the common thread that runs through all of these choices.

The Challenges That Are Obstructing the Implementation

In spite of the fact that the rule is clear and obvious in theory, there are challenges that come along with putting it into practice. In order to ensure that open applications and ongoing projects have been granted the requisite approvals, it is now obligatory for state governments and regulatory authorities to conduct a review of current projects and open applications.

There is a risk that the judicial evaluation of individual cases may increase, which would result in extra requirements being placed on courts that are already overseeing environmental disputes.

Another issue that has to be addressed is the question of how to handle projects that are unable to resume the review process owing to financial or logistical constraints. This is a matter that needs to be addressed.

The non-negotiable status of ecological protection was confirmed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vanashakti v. Union of India, which included the refusal of retrospective environmental clearances.

This was done despite the fact that growth is a limitation. The judgment of the Supreme Court to strike down notices that intended to regularize post-facto approvals has brought to light the reality that environmental control is not a negotiable luxury but rather a fundamental need.

This was brought to light by the United States Supreme Court. This decision will serve as a reminder that legislation that is lawful, transparent, and forward-looking is necessary for progress to be sustainable. This is of utmost significance for India, which is currently facing challenges in successfully achieving both its growth and conservation objectives.