Congress Accuses OM of Weakening Environmental Impact Assessment Safeguards
Congress criticises OM over environmental clearance norms.
The Congress on Thursday said it would continue opposing any attempt to expand the scope of post-facto environmental clearances, asserting that environmental safeguards must not be diluted. The party's remarks came a day after the Supreme Court ruled that environmental protections cannot be modified through administrative orders and struck down a 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that allowed retrospective environmental clearances for projects that had begun without prior approval. The apex court held that prior environmental clearance is a mandatory legal requirement and observed that projects cannot be granted retrospective approval through executive instructions.
However, the court clarified that its judgment would operate prospectively, meaning projects that had already received retrospective environmental clearances under the 2021 Office Memorandum would not face demolition or other punitive action solely because of the ruling. Reacting to the verdict, Congress leader and former Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said the judgment reaffirmed key principles of environmental law.
In a post on X, he noted that a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had, in May 2025, delivered what he described as a landmark decision on environmental governance. Ramesh said the court had ruled that the mechanisms created through the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum effectively "rewarded illegality" by allowing projects to obtain environmental approvals after commencing work.
According to him, the judgment concluded that such provisions undermined the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, violated the principle of sustainable development, and infringed upon the constitutional right to a clean environment. The Congress leader further alleged that the Union Government subsequently sought a review of the ruling, arguing that the judgment could disrupt projects worth several crores that had already begun operations without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance in advance. Ramesh also questioned the handling of the review petition by the Supreme Court. He claimed that a three-judge bench agreed to hear the review in open court without explaining why the case warranted a departure from the court's usual review procedure.
Also Read: Haryana CM Accuses Congress, AAP Of Failing To Protect Youth Interests
He further stated that the bench recalled the May 2025 judgment, a development that had raised concerns among environmental advocates. The Supreme Court's latest ruling, however, has once again emphasised the importance of obtaining environmental approval before initiating projects.
The court observed that executive orders cannot dilute statutory environmental safeguards and reaffirmed that the EIA process plays a crucial role in balancing development with ecological protection. The Congress said it would remain committed to defending environmental laws and resisting any policy changes that weaken the requirement for prior environmental clearances.
The party argued that environmental regulations are essential to ensuring sustainable development and protecting natural resources for future generations. The debate over retrospective environmental clearances has remained a contentious issue, with environmental groups maintaining that allowing projects to seek approval after commencing work weakens accountability and undermines the purpose of environmental impact assessments. The latest Supreme Court ruling is expected to influence future policy decisions and the regulatory framework governing infrastructure and industrial projects across the country.
Also Read: Tejasvi Surya Takes Aim At Congress With ‘Delulu’ Remark On Paper Leak Bill
