Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction

Order Date: 29 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Vanashakti (along with other intervenors) versus Union of India (respondent). The review petition was filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI). Additional parties included various State governments (Tamil Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Odisha, Karnataka) and project proponents.
  • Petitions involved: Writ Petition (C) No. 1394 of 2023 (primary), Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2019, Writ Petition (C) No. 115 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 8187 of 2025, Civil Appeals Nos. 381‑382 of 2025, and numerous diary entries spanning 2024‑2025.
  • Instruments challenged: (i) The 2017 Notification dated 14‑03‑2017 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) under Sections 3(1) & 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; (ii) The 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) dated 07‑07‑2021, also issued by MoEFCC, purportedly implementing the NGT direction in Tanaji B. Gambhire.
  • Background: The 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification makes prior environmental clearance (EC) mandatory. Earlier court decisions (Common Cause, Alembic, Electrosteel, Pahwa, D. Swamy) dealt with the legality of post‑facto ECs. The Madras High Court in Fatima (30‑08‑2024) quashed the 2021 OM and a 19‑02‑2021 OM prospectively. The Supreme Court’s earlier judgment Vanashakti‑I (16‑05‑2025) struck down both the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM, restraining the Central Government from issuing similar instruments.
  • Review: CREDAI sought review of Vanashakti‑I. A three‑Judge Bench (Chief Justice Gavai C.J., Justice Chandran J., Justice Bhuyan J.) heard the review. By majority (Gavai C.J. and Chandran J.) the review was allowed on two grounds: (a) Vanashakti‑I failed to consider certain paragraphs of Common Cause, Alembic and Electrosteel; (b) it omitted the coordinate‑Bench decisions in Pahwa and D. Swamy. The Bench recalled Vanashakti‑I but did not pronounce on the merits of the 2017 Notification or the 2021 OM.
  • Submissions: Petitioners argued that the 2006 Notification’s word “prior” makes EC indispensable; that the 2017 Notification was a one‑time amnesty with a six‑month window (extended to 13‑04‑2018); and that the 2021 OM created a perpetual post‑facto regime, violating Articles 14 and 21. Respondents contended that the 2021 OM merely filled a procedural gap left by the 2006 Notification, was consistent with the NGT direction, and that ex‑post‑facto ECs could be granted in exceptional cases.

Final Outcome

1. Quashing of the 2021 Office Memorandum – The Court held the 2021 OM ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the 2006 Notification. It is quashed with prospective effect; the Union is barred from issuing any future administrative orders granting ex‑post‑facto ECs without a valid notification under Section 3 of the 1986 Act.

2. Validity of the 2017 Notification – The Court upheld the 2017 Notification as a valid, narrowly‑tailored, time‑bound delegated legislation that provides a one‑time amnesty for projects already in violation, subject to central appraisal, damage assessment, remediation and compensation.

3. Effect on Existing Clearances – All environmental clearances already granted under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM remain valid unless individually challenged on merits.

4. Pending Applications – All pending applications filed under either instrument must be processed to logical conclusion in accordance with law; no fresh applications for EC under these instruments shall be entertained.

5. Directions – The government is restrained from issuing any future administrative orders for post‑facto ECs; only a proper notification under the powers of Section 3 may be used for any future amnesty scheme.

6. Other Orders – Writ petitions and miscellaneous applications are disposed of; Civil Appeals Nos. 381‑382 / 2025 are dismissed; the State of Tamil Nadu’s appeal in Fatima (C.A. No. 8253 / 2026) is to be disposed of in light of this judgment; the SLP (C) No. 8187 / 2025 is de‑tagged for separate hearing.

Topics: Environmental Clearance, Constitutional Law, Administrative Orders