A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the OM, aimed at implementing the court’s earlier verdict, could not be challenged separately. “Since the Office Memorandum was meant to implement an SC judgment, the challenge was effectively against the judgment itself,” the bench said.
“Be ready for exemplary costs. We know the design behind this,” Chief Justice Surya Kant warned. “Can one challenge a judgment by a writ petition? It is just for media consumption,” the bench added. Following the warning of potential exemplary costs, Ramesh withdrew his plea.
The Supreme Court had, in May last year, ruled that the right to live in a pollution-free environment forms part of the fundamental right under the Constitution. In the same judgment, the court struck down the Centre’s Office Memorandum that permitted ex post facto, or retrospective, environmental clearances for projects violating norms.
“The Union government, as much as individual citizens, has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment,” the court had stated. It further warned that attempts to bypass legal prohibitions would be met with strict consequences. “Cleverly, the words ex post facto have not been used, but without using those words, there is a provision to effectively grant ex post facto EC. The 2021 OM has been issued in violation of the decisions of this court,” it noted.
As a result of the court’s ruling, the Centre has been restrained from issuing directions for granting ex post facto clearances in any form or manner or for regularising acts carried out in contravention of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification.
