VANASHAKTI versus UNION OF INDIA

VANASHAKTI versus UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court held that the 2017 MoEFCC notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum are illegal because they, in substance and effect, permit retrospective/ex post facto environmental clearances contrary to the EIA Notification 2006 and settled precedents (Common Cause, Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Electrosteel Steels); such measures are arbitrary, violate Articles 21 and 14, and the Central Government is restrained from issuing or implementing instruments that grant ex post facto EC, while existing ECs already granted under those instruments are preserved.

Parties
Petitioner: Vanashakti; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (c) No. 1394 of 2023 (consolidated With Writ Petition (c) No. 118 of 2019, Writ Petition (c) No. 115 of 2024 and Civil Appeal Nos. 381 382 of 2025) / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court (16 May 2025)
Outcome
Writ petitions and civil appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Clearance, Ex Post Facto Clearance, EIA Notification 2006, Polluter Pays Principle, Right to Clean Environment (article 21), Equality (article 14), Fundamental Duties (article 51 A(g))
Environmental Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Clearance Ex Post Facto Clearance EIA Notification 2006 Polluter Pays Principle +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanashakti

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (c) No. 1394 of 2023 (consolidated With Writ Petition (c) No. 118 of 2019, Writ Petition (c) No. 115 of 2024 and Civil Appeal Nos. 381 382 of 2025) / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court (16 May 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2017 MoEFCC notification permitting ex post facto environmental clearances is legal and valid
  2. 2 Whether the 2021 Office Memorandum laying down an SOP effectively permits ex post facto environmental clearances and is legal and valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the 2017 MoEFCC notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum are illegal because they, in substance and effect, permit retrospective/ex post facto environmental clearances contrary to the EIA Notification 2006 and settled precedents (Common Cause, Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Electrosteel Steels); such measures are arbitrary, violate Articles 21 and 14, and the Central Government is restrained from issuing or implementing instruments that grant ex post facto EC, while existing ECs already granted under those instruments are preserved.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions and civil appeals allowed

Orders

  • The 2017 MoEFCC notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum and all circulars/orders/OMs/notifications issued for giving effect to these instruments are declared illegal and struck down
  • The Central Government is restrained from issuing circulars/orders/OMs/notifications providing for grant of ex post facto environmental clearance or for regularising acts done in contravention of the EIA Notification, in any form or manner