Fri Jan 23 09:57:22 UTC 2026: # Congress Leader Challenges Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances in Supreme Court

The Story:
On January 23, 2026, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of ex post facto environmental clearances. He argues that these clearances are detrimental to public health, undermine governance, and provide an easy escape for lawbreakers. Ramesh’s action is motivated by the Supreme Court’s recent review on December 29, 2025, regarding the redefinition of the Aravallis and a prior ruling on retrospective environmental approvals.

Key Points:

  • Jairam Ramesh filed a petition in the Supreme Court against ex post facto environmental clearances.
  • Ramesh argues such clearances are “bad in law, are detrimental to public health, and make a mockery of governance.”
  • He was “encouraged” by the Supreme Court’s review of an earlier verdict on the Aravallis.
  • The Supreme Court had previously opened the door for review of its verdict barring retrospective environmental approvals.
  • The Congress party previously criticized the Supreme Court for recalling its judgement that prohibited post-facto environmental clearances.
  • The Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, recalled its May 16 judgement that had prohibited the Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearances.

Key Takeaways:

  • The issue of retrospective environmental clearances remains a contentious legal and political battleground in India.
  • Jairam Ramesh and the Congress party are actively opposing these clearances, citing concerns about public health, environmental protection, and the rule of law.
  • The Supreme Court’s stance on this issue is evolving, marked by reversals and ongoing deliberations.
  • This legal challenge could have significant implications for infrastructure projects and environmental regulations in India.

Impact Analysis:

The legal challenge against ex post facto environmental clearances has the potential for significant long-term impact. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against such clearances, it could lead to:

  • Increased scrutiny of existing and future projects: Projects that have received retrospective clearances could face renewed legal challenges and potential shutdowns.
  • Stricter environmental regulations: The government may be forced to strengthen environmental regulations and enforcement mechanisms to avoid future violations.
  • Delays in infrastructure development: The approval process for new projects could become more time-consuming and complex, potentially slowing down infrastructure development.
  • Greater accountability for environmental violations: Companies and individuals found guilty of environmental violations could face stiffer penalties and legal consequences.

    Read More