The Supreme Court changed an earlier ruling about environmental clearance on November 18. In May, the Court had cancelled two government rules from 2017 and 2021. These rules allowed projects that started work without permission to apply for permission later. Now the Court says that earlier ruling was a mistake.
Two judges said the May ruling ignored past Supreme Court decisions. One judge disagreed and said the May ruling was correct. Because of this split, the Court has reopened the case. The rules from 2017 and 2021 stay in place for now.
This case deals with one basic question. If a project begins work without environmental clearance, should it be shut down and demolished, or can the government let it continue after paying penalties and fixing mistakes?
What is Vanashakti judgment?
The Vanashakti judgment was the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2025. That decision cancelled the Centre’s 2017 notification and 2021 office order. Those two measures created a process for giving environmental clearance after work had already started.
Many projects in India start work before getting approval. This includes airports, hospitals, schools, roads and factories. Some start because approvals take months. Others start without permission. To deal with this, the government created a one-time window in 2017. Violators had to apply for clearance within six months. In 2021, the ministry added clear rules on how to check such cases and how much penalty they must pay.
The Vanashakti ruling said this entire process was wrong. It said environmental clearance must always come first. It said giving approval later defeats the purpose of the law. This created worry for many big public projects already near completion.
The Vanashakti judgment kept past clearances valid but blocked all new post-facto approvals. This created confusion for ongoing projects.
Why Supreme Court strikes down
The Supreme Court recalled the Vanashakti ruling because it did not consider earlier decisions on the same topic. In those earlier cases, the Court had said that in some situations, approval could be given later, after paying penalties.
The majority judges said that if the Court did not allow this option, many large public projects would have to be demolished. They said this would waste public money and also harm the environment because demolition creates dust and debris. They also said the 2017 and 2021 rules already punish violators through heavy penalties.
The third judge disagreed. He said clearance must always come before construction. He said giving approval later weakens environmental protection. He said penalties cannot be used to justify an illegal start.
Because two judges out of three supported recall, the Vanashakti ruling has been withdrawn.
Background of the case
India’s environmental clearance system started with a 1994 rule. This rule said projects must get approval before starting work. In 2006, a clearer rule was issued. It said prior environmental clearance is mandatory.
In spite of this, many projects started work without approval. Some were private, some were government-run. To handle these violations, the Centre introduced the 2017 notification. It let such projects apply for clearance during a six-month window. Then in 2021, a Standard Operating Procedure laid out how to evaluate violations, what penalties to charge and how to bring projects into compliance.
Several major projects used these rules. These included the AIIMS campus in Odisha and the Vijayanagar airport in Karnataka. But the Vanashakti judgment in May struck down both rules. This created a risk that such projects could be stopped or even demolished.
Developers and government bodies then filed a review petition. They said the May judgment ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings that allowed limited retrospective approval.
Now the Court has recalled its earlier decision. The 2017 and 2021 rules stay for now, and the Court will study the issue again.
The core issue is simple. Should projects that begin work without environmental clearance be punished with demolition, or can they fix the violation by paying penalties and getting approval later?
Support us to keep independent environmental journalism alive in India.
Keep Reading
He Left the City to Farm, But Tigers Made the Fields His Biggest Risk
Sheopur’s farmers: Bad weather, crop failure & financial hardship
Stay connected with Ground Report for underreported environmental stories.
Follow us onX, Instagram, and Facebook; share your thoughts at greport2018@gmail.com; subscribe to our weekly newsletter for deep dives from the margins; join our WhatsApp community for real-time updates; and catch our video reports on YouTube.
Your support amplifies voices too often overlooked, thank you for being part of the movement.
