THE SUPREME COURT this week questioned whether courts could adopt a rigid approach barring ex post-facto environmental clearances altogether, and if the legislature or a delegated law-maker could be treated as completely stripped of power to provide for such a regime. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the challenge to the legal framework permitting ex post-facto environmental clearances. The matter arises from the Court's earlier decision recalling its own order that had prohibited retrospective environmental approvals.
In the previous hearing in February, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan had argued that the review bench’s decision had effectively shut the door on the petitioners’ ability to argue their case, and had urged the Court to either refer the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench or clarify that those findings were not binding on the merits.
In the hearings this week, while Sankaranarayanan argued that Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (‘EPA’) could not be used to create a blanket post-facto clearance regime, advocate Srishti Agnihotri argued that the very architecture of the EIA process makes prior clearance structurally non-negotiable.
Find our detailed coverage on the previous hearing in February 2026 here.
