3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Feb 12, 2026 02:18 PM IST
The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the Centre’s decision to grant ex post facto environmental clearances, saying it amounted to an indirect attempt to seek review of its judgment approving the policy.
“For what purpose this has been filed? You are very well aware that now a three-judge bench has taken a view. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench, asked the counsel appearing for the Rajya Sabha MP.
The court’s reference was to the November 18, 2025, judgment, which, by a 2:1 majority, recalled a May 16 ruling that had struck down a Central government notification allowing the grant of environmental clearance for projects ex post facto – in short, clearance for projects after commencement.
The judgement came on a clutch of petitions, including one by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, and struck down two office memorandums (OMs) issued by the environment ministry in 2017 and 2021.
The 2017 notification offered a one-time amnesty window and allowed approvals for projects where work had commenced without prior environment clearance under the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment Notification. The amnesty was in effect for six months, from March 2017 to September 2017.
In 2021, citing compliance with a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order, the ministry issued another OM spelling out a standard operating procedure (SOP) “for dealing with violation cases”.
Following the November 18 judgement, the Centre issued another OM to give effect to it.
Story continues below this ad
On Thursday, the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, asked how a writ petition could be filed to challenge an Supreme Cour judgment. The counsel tried to explain that the petition also challenged the OM issued after the judgment as well.
But the CJI was not convinced and asked, “How the writ is maintainable? The Government has issued a notification in compliance with the Supreme Court Judgment. By challenging it, you are indirectly seeking a review of the judgment. How is it possible?”
The counsel said he was only invoking the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to stop ex post facto environmental clearances.
The court, however, sought to know how a writ would lie against a Supreme Court judgment. The CJI asked, “Have you filed this for media publicity?” and warned that it would impose high costs.
The counsel then said he would withdraw the petition.
Story continues below this ad
The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the November 16 judgment in accordance with the law.
