The Supreme Court has withdrawn its May 16, 2025 judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India, reopening the debate on whether projects that began without prior environmental approval can be regularised later. The recall follows a review petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI), which argued that the earlier ruling overlooked key precedents and would have severe consequences for ongoing projects across the country.
A majority led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, with Justice K. Vinod Chandran concurring, held that the earlier judgment had been delivered per incuriam. They pointed out that it conflicted with two binding rulings of co-ordinate benches: D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO. Both had accepted the possibility of granting post-facto clearances in specific situations.
The majority said the May judgment relied selectively on earlier decisions such as Common Cause, Alembic Pharmaceuticals, and Electrosteel Steels, while ignoring parts of the same rulings that encouraged a balanced approach. Those judgments had allowed non-compliant projects to continue after paying penalties and funding environmental restoration.
The Court also flagged the economic fallout. Allowing the earlier ruling to stand would have forced the demolition of completed or nearly completed public projects, including the 962-bed AIIMS in Odisha and the greenfield airport in Vijayanagar, Karnataka. Together, these represent a loss of around ₹20,000 crore. The Chief Justice noted that tearing down such projects only to rebuild them after securing clearances would generate avoidable pollution and waste.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a strong dissent. He argued that post-facto environmental clearances are incompatible with established environmental law and that the majority view undermines the principle of non-regression, which prohibits lowering environmental protection standards. Justice Bhuyan maintained that Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals clearly rejected the idea of ex post facto approval and said that later rulings permitting it were themselves incorrect.
He also questioned how the 2021 Office Memorandum could remain valid when the 2017 Notification it relied on was introduced as a one-time exception that expired in April 2018. Since the government had not sought a review, it remained bound by its earlier position.
With the May judgment recalled, the original writ petitions and connected appeals will now be heard by a newly constituted bench. For now, the decision offers short-term relief to developers and public agencies, but the broader question of whether the State can regularise environmental violations after the fact remains unsettled.
Case Details
Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti and Another
Review Petition (C) Diary No. 41929 of 2025 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1394 of 2023
Bench: CJI B. R. Gavai, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Petitioners represented by: Tushar Mehta, Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi
Respondents represented by: Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sanjay Parikh, Raju Ramachandran, Anand Grover, Anitha Shenoy