The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: With the Supreme Court on Tuesday recalling its May 16, 2025 judgment that had prohibited the Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs) to projects in violation of norms, decks seemed to have been cleared for Greenfield Vijaynagar airport in Karnataka.
A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan, with a majority of 2:1 allowed the review applications against the previous judgment.
Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, the nodal agency for the airport, among others filed the applications for review in the court.
Seeking recall of the judgment, senior advocate Kapil Sibal with advocate Nishanth Patil for Karnataka gave an example of a greenfield Airport at Vijayanagar in the State of Karnataka.
The counsel submitted that the construction of the entire airport is completed; but on account of the judgment, now the entire airport will have to be demolished.
Having considered the matter, all the three judges rendered three separate judgments.
The CJI and Justice Chandran recalled the previous judgment. Justice Bhuyan, however, gave a dissenting opinion.
The CJI said, if the judgment is permitted to operate rather than protecting the environment, it would result in creating even more pollution.
"I say so because if such large number of buildings/projects which have been completed or are near completion are demolished and they could be reconstructed shortly thereafter after obtaining EC as they were otherwise permissible; it would result in nothing but creating more pollution which could not have been the intention of the judgement,'' he wrote.
The CJI said, the judgment will result in demolition of various buildings/projects, AIIMS Medical College and Hospital in Odisha, greenfield airport in Vijayanagar and common effluent treatment plants, constructed out of public exchequer to the tune of nearly Rs 20,000 crore.
Justice Chandran concurred with the opinion of the CJI and found the review to be not only warranted, but imperative and expedient.
Justice Bhuyan, who was a part of the judgment under review delivered by Justice Abhay S Oka (since retired), disagreed, saying the principle of non-regression prohibited theState from reversing or weakening the existing standards of environmental protection in the country.
"It is unfortunate that a false narrative is being created pitting environment against development. It is a completely untenable binary in as much as ecology and development are not adversaries. Both are part of the constitutional construct of sustainable development,'' he wrote.
In its previous judgment, the court had declared the concept of ex post facto or retrospective environmental clearance is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence and the environmental impact assessment notification. It had held that the 2017 notification and the 2021 office memorandum as well as all circulars, orders and notifications issued for giving effect to these notifications are illegal.
Ends