<p>The Supreme Court has said that there can't be a concept of environment clearance with retrospective effect for an industrial activity as it would be contrary to the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development.</p>.<p>The top court held an administrative circular issued by the Union government on May 14, 2002, allowing an ex post facto permission as "unsustainable in law", for being contrary to the statutory notification on Environment Impact Assessment of January 27, 1994.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi ordered Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd and two others of Gujarat to pay Rs 10 crore each as compensation for causing environmental degradation as they operated without prior environmental clearance. The amount would be utilised for restoration and remedial measures to improve the quality of the environment.</p>.<p>The bench said one must adopt an ecologically rational outlook towards development.</p>.<p>In view of the social and environmental impacts of industrial activity, environment compliance must not be seen as an obstacle to development but as a measure towards achieving sustainable development and inter-generational equity, the bench added.</p>.<p>In a judgement delivered on Wednesday, the court, however, set aside the National Green Tribunal's decision of January 8, 2016, for revocation of environmental clearance and closure of the industries.</p>.<p>In their appeal, the companies claimed that they had taken environmental clearance, in accordance with 2002 circular.</p>.<p>The bench said, "The concept of an ex post facto environmental clearance is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA notification of January 27, 1994."</p>.<p>The court said allowing for an ex post facto clearance would essentially condone the operation of industrial activities. </p>.<p>"In the absence of environmental clearance, there would be no conditions that would safeguard the environment. Moreover, if it was to be ultimately refused, irreparable harm would have been caused to the environment. On either view of the matter, environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance," the bench said. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said that there can't be a concept of environment clearance with retrospective effect for an industrial activity as it would be contrary to the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development.</p>.<p>The top court held an administrative circular issued by the Union government on May 14, 2002, allowing an ex post facto permission as "unsustainable in law", for being contrary to the statutory notification on Environment Impact Assessment of January 27, 1994.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi ordered Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd and two others of Gujarat to pay Rs 10 crore each as compensation for causing environmental degradation as they operated without prior environmental clearance. The amount would be utilised for restoration and remedial measures to improve the quality of the environment.</p>.<p>The bench said one must adopt an ecologically rational outlook towards development.</p>.<p>In view of the social and environmental impacts of industrial activity, environment compliance must not be seen as an obstacle to development but as a measure towards achieving sustainable development and inter-generational equity, the bench added.</p>.<p>In a judgement delivered on Wednesday, the court, however, set aside the National Green Tribunal's decision of January 8, 2016, for revocation of environmental clearance and closure of the industries.</p>.<p>In their appeal, the companies claimed that they had taken environmental clearance, in accordance with 2002 circular.</p>.<p>The bench said, "The concept of an ex post facto environmental clearance is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA notification of January 27, 1994."</p>.<p>The court said allowing for an ex post facto clearance would essentially condone the operation of industrial activities. </p>.<p>"In the absence of environmental clearance, there would be no conditions that would safeguard the environment. Moreover, if it was to be ultimately refused, irreparable harm would have been caused to the environment. On either view of the matter, environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance," the bench said. </p>
