The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the validity of retrospective environmental clearances, with the bench sharply questioning the maintainability of the plea and warning of potential “exemplary cost.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petition appeared to be an indirect attempt to seek review of a judgment already passed by a larger bench of the apex court.
“Please tell us how the writ is maintainable. We know the design behind these kinds of writ petitions,” CJI Surya Kant remarked. “There was a judgment. That has been set aside by a larger bench in review. Now, you are indirectly filing a review petition. Be ready for exemplary cost.”
Faced with the court’s clear disinclination to admit the matter, the counsel for Ramesh sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to pursue remedies available under law.
On November 18, 2025, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had, by 2:1 majority, reversed a May 2022 ruling that barred the Centre from granting ex post facto (retrospective) environmental clearances to projects that had violated environmental norms.
The majority held that undoing the May verdict was necessary to avoid catastrophic financial consequences, observing:
“Thousands of crores of rupees would go in waste… Vital public projects worth nearly ₹20,000 crore constructed out of the public exchequer will be demolished.”
During today’s hearing, the bench questioned why a fresh writ petition was filed when the issue had already been settled by a three-judge bench.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the cause of action arose from a January 2026 office memorandum issued to give effect to the November judgment, and sought to challenge the policy of granting retrospective clearances.
But the CJI firmly responded:
“Therefore, you can challenge a judgment in a writ petition? When the judgment is delivered by this court and the government, in compliance of that judgment, has issued a notification, you will challenge that notification?”
Labeling it a petition “filed only for the media,” the court said if the petitioner was truly aggrieved by the judgment, the correct remedy would be to seek review or other legal recourse—not to file a fresh writ.
As the bench reiterated its views, the counsel opted to withdraw the petition. The court granted permission to withdraw with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy.
