A major judicial moment unfolded in the Supreme Court when Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Gavai delivered a verdict that triggered sharp disagreement within the bench. The judgment, linked to the reconsideration of the Vanashakti environmental clearance case, led one of the judges to write a detailed 97-page dissent, marking one of the strongest internal disagreements in recent times.
This case revolves around whether retrospective (post-facto) environmental clearances should be considered valid—an issue that directly impacts environmental protection laws and large-scale infrastructure projects.
What Happened Inside the Court
During the hearing, discussions escalated into a heated exchange.
CJI Gavai criticised the increasing trend of selective presentation of legal arguments, saying that the Court often faces submissions that are “read out of context.”
His remarks sparked visible disagreement from Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who had authored the original judgment that disallowed retrospective environmental clearances. According to him, reopening this decision undermines established environmental jurisprudence.
The bench saw moments of tension as both sides strongly defended their legal positions.
Justice Bhuyan’s 97-Page Dissent
Justice Bhuyan penned a 97-page dissenting opinion, asserting that:
-
The original Vanashakti ruling was legally sound.
-
Prior environmental clearance must remain mandatory.
-
Retrospective environmental approvals harm ecological safeguards.
-
Environmental principles like the precautionary rule cannot be compromised.
His note strongly emphasised that revisiting a well-reasoned judgment without compelling grounds weakens the judiciary’s consistency and environmental protections.
CJI Gavai’s Stand
CJI Gavai, however, stated that certain important aspects needed re-examination. He argued that:
-
The Court must ensure clarity for industries and policymakers.
-
Judicial decisions should not create administrative hurdles.
-
The law must balance environmental protection and development.
His ruling opened the door for a fresh review, making the matter more complex and context-dependent.
Why This Debate Matters
This clash is significant because the Vanashakti decision earlier established strict restrictions against back-dated environmental clearances. If diluted, industries may gain more flexibility, but environmental accountability might weaken.
For activists, regulators, and businesses, this outcome will influence:
-
Industrial permissions
-
Project timelines
-
Environmental safeguards
-
Legal standards for future cases
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court will continue to review arguments and submissions in the coming hearings. The final judgment will shape environmental law interpretation for years to come.
