On Tuesday, the Supreme Court the fate of public projects worth nearly Rs.20,000 crore returned to centre stage as the Court revisited its own earlier order that had placed several major infrastructure works on the verge of demolition. The matter, which began with a sweeping stance against ex-post facto environmental clearances, has now transformed into a high-stakes debate over balancing environmental principles with the realities of governance and public expenditure.
The controversy traces back to the Court’s May ruling, which had held that public projects receiving environmental clearance after construction even after paying penalties must be halted and demolished. This sweeping direction affected a range of crucial projects across India. Seeking reversal of that position, the Steel Authority of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and the Karnataka government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, approached the Court urging a recall of the judgment. They argued that the earlier ruling created an inconsistency by allowing mining operations to continue after obtaining post-facto clearances while at the same time directing demolition of key public structures that had already undergone environmental impact assessments.
The Court was informed that 24 central projects worth Rs.8,293 crore and another 29 state projects worth Rs.11,169 crore were stuck because final environmental clearances could not be issued following a Supreme Court stay issued on January, 2024. Most of these projects, counsel pointed out, had completed the EIA process and were only awaiting the final stage of approval. Among the threatened works were major public assets such as AIIMS in Odisha, a Greenfield airport in Karnataka, and a large effluent treatment plant, along with several real estate developments flagged by CREDAI.
During the hearing, the Solicitor General stressed that demolishing near-complete or fully functional public infrastructure would not only waste vast sums of taxpayer money but also generate additional pollution from the destruction itself. He described the potential outcome as a devastating blow to the public exchequer. Countering this, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, part of the original Bench that authored the May judgment, strongly opposed any dilution of the earlier verdict. He underscored that the precautionary principle remains the foundation of environmental jurisprudence and warned that prioritising the “polluter pays” approach over precaution weakens environmental accountability. In his view, revisiting the ruling amounted to a backward step that overlooked the fundamental norms governing ecological protection.
Chief Justice Gavai, however, questioned whether public interest would be served by razing down vital infrastructure built with thousands of crores of public funds. He observed that if the earlier judgment were left untouched, it could lead to the destruction of projects that are either completed or on the brink of completion, resulting in massive financial waste and avoidable pollution caused by demolition.
In the end, the Supreme Court by a 2-1 majority decided to recall its May judgment, while Justice Bhuyan dissented and maintained that the original ruling required no interference.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :