New Delhi: The Congress on Thursday asserted that it will continue to oppose any move to expand the scope of post-facto environmental clearances, saying it remains committed to protecting the core principles of environmental law.

The party's remarks came a day after the Supreme Court struck down a 2021 Office Memorandum that allowed the Centre and other authorities to grant retrospective environmental clearances to projects that had begun operations without obtaining prior approval. The court ruled that such environmental safeguards cannot be altered through administrative orders.

Congress general secretary and former Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh said a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had delivered a landmark judgment on environmental law in May 2025.

"It held that prior environmental clearance is mandatory and that post-facto approval mechanisms created by the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum rewarded illegality, undermined the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and violated the principles of sustainable development and the right to a clean environment," he said on X.

Ramesh said the Union government later sought a review of the judgment, arguing that it could affect projects worth crores that had already commenced without prior environmental clearance.

"The Union Government sought a review. It argued that the judgment would disrupt projects worth crores that had already commenced without prior clearance. In a concerning turn, a three-judge bench entertained the review in open court without explaining why the matter warranted departure from the usual review process," Ramesh said, adding that it "recalled" the May 2025 judgment.

Recalling the proceedings, Ramesh noted that Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had dissented, warning that there is "no concept of ex-post facto environmental clearance in environmental law" and that such approvals are "an anathema" to environmental jurisprudence.

Welcoming the latest verdict, Ramesh said, "The Supreme Court's judgment pronounced yesterday, holding that executive instructions (2021 Office Memorandum) cannot override the statutory EIA Notification, is a step in the right direction."

He, however, expressed concern that the ruling also allows the Centre to introduce a statutory framework for granting post-facto environmental clearances in exceptional situations.

"But it also permits the government to create a statutory mechanism for post-facto environmental clearances in 'exceptional circumstances', circumstances that the government is free to define," Ramesh said.

Referring to ongoing environmental disputes, Ramesh said communities affected by projects such as the Great Nicobar development, the Ken-Betwa river-linking project, mining in Odisha and extractive projects in Chhattisgarh have consistently opposed attempts to weaken environmental safeguards.

"Over the last 17 years, I have lent my voice and support to a large constituency of concerned citizens and several public campaigns opposing dilution of India's hard-won environmental protections," he said.

"We will continue to resist every attempt to widen the scope of post-facto environmental clearances and remain steadfast in defending the core principles of environmental law, which carry at their core a commitment to the marginalised," Ramesh added.

In its judgment delivered on Wednesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that the 2021 Office Memorandum was invalid but said the decision would operate prospectively, thereby protecting projects that had already received retrospective environmental clearances from demolition or other punitive action.

The court observed that the Centre has adequate powers under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to issue statutory notifications introducing amnesty schemes for specific categories of non-compliant projects where doing so serves the larger public interest.

Among the projects covered by the ruling are the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital building in Odisha, the Centre of Excellence for Cancer Diseases in Tamil Nadu, Vijayapura Airport in Karnataka, slum rehabilitation projects and irrigation projects in drought-prone regions.

"We hold the 2021 Office Memorandum to be invalid and quash it with prospective effect. We do so using our powers under Article 142, taking into account two distinct reasons. First, considerable legal uncertainty prevailed regarding the validity of the impugned instruments and the processing and grant of ECs under them...

"Second, supervening public interest is involved in several projects which have already been undertaken or substantially progressed in reliance upon the prevailing regulatory position," the bench said.

The Supreme Court further clarified that while the Centre can provide post-facto environmental clearances through valid statutory notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, such approvals cannot be granted through executive or administrative office memoranda.

The bench also stressed the need to balance environmental protection with developmental needs, observing that in an "anthropocentric world", courts must safeguard the right to a pollution-free environment while recognising the aspirations of a developing nation. Referring to the principle of eco-centric proportionality, the court invoked Mahatma Gandhi's words that "the world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." PTI