Introduction
Environmental clearances (ECs) under the 2006 EIA Notification are foundational to India’s environmental regulation. Judicial review mechanisms—via the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Supreme Court—play a vital role in ensuring compliance with procedural norms, preventing ex post facto regularization, and holding both regulators and project proponents accountable under principles like the precautionary principle, polluter pays, and Article 21 (Right to a pollution-free life).
Supreme Court Safeguards Against Retrospective ECs
In a landmark ruling on May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court invalidated the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum that permitted retrospective or ex post facto environmental clearances. The Court reaffirmed that prior EC is mandatory and that regularisation of violations post-clearance undermines constitutional environmental rights—including Article 21 ETLegalWorld.comETLegalWorld.com+2Down To Earth+2Drishti IAS+2The Times of India+9Trilegal+9Drishti IAS+9.
The decision held that while ECs granted before judgment would remain valid to avoid legal instability, no new clearances could be granted retroactively. The Court emphasized that environmental compliance must be front-loaded—not remedial—and cancellation of these instruments restores integrity to the EIA process India Corporate Law.
The ruling sends a powerful message: development cannot be peeled back from environmental safeguards, and prior EIA assessments are not a bureaucratic formality but a substantive constitutional obligation.
NGT’s Role in Reviewing and Enforcing Clearances
Technical Scrutiny & Cumulative Impact Reviews
The NGT has consistently ordered fresh Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) where prior clearances were based on incomplete or misleading data. For example, in T. Muruganandam v. MoEF, NGT struck down ECs for a Tamil Nadu power plant lacking proper cumulative impact assessment, context-specific sampling, and air quality modelling ETLegalWorld.comCambridge University Press & Assessment.
Similarly, the Cuddalore IL&FS thermal power project lost its EC in 2014 on account of absence of cumulative impact studies, prompting a fresh review India Corporate Law+11Wikipedia+11Cambridge University Press & Assessment+11.
Suo Motu Intervention & Oversight
NGT benches also invoke suo motu powers to inspect alleged environmental violations—even without formal petitions. Recent orders include joint inspections of Mumbai’s Powai Lake for neglect and hyacinth infestation The Times of India+7Trilegal+7The Times of India+7, and probe into illegal sand mining in Odisha's Dhenkanal district—setting up expert committees with strict reporting timelines The Times of India.
NGT has also penalized civic utilities for continuing environmental harm—fines including ₹24 crore levied on Noida authorities for sewage discharge into green belts The Times of India+12Reddit+12The Times of India+12, and addressing heritage tree felling in Faridabad via environmental compensation mandates The Times of India.
These actions underline NGT's willingness to enforce clearances robustly and demand restoration plans and compliance timelines.
Impact and Enforcement Effectiveness
Compliance Follow-up & Monitoring
NGT often sets binding timelines for corrective actions. For example, Noida authorities have committed to clear encroachments across over 1,000 ponds under judicial monitoring through November 2025 ETLegalWorld.com+11India Corporate Law+11Down To Earth+11The Times of India. Such monitoring is key to translating orders into environmental restoration.
Weaknesses in Enforcement
Despite strong orders, enforcement remains uneven. In Haryana, authorities imposed ₹499 crore in environmental compensation on industries but collected only ₹132 crore—leaving a vast sum unpaid—highlighting collection inefficiencies and lack of statutory recovery mechanisms The Times of India.
Similarly, in Ludhiana’s Buddha Nullah case, civic inaction and polluting industries continue violations despite earlier directives, as activists accuse regulatory boards of collusion and delaying compliance The Times of India+1The Times of India+1.
These examples reflect institutional enforcement gaps—particularly in follow-up execution and penalty recovery.
Challenges in Judicial Review of ECs
Procedural Fairness and Overreach
The Supreme Court has occasionally adjusted NGT orders where procedural lapses occurred—such as failing to conduct hearings or relying on outsourced expert reports (per the Grasim case)—raising the need for stronger enforcement of natural justice standards by NGT benches WikipediaCambridge University Press & Assessment.
Critics argue NGT’s suo motu interventions add judicial unpredictability and strain federal jurisdiction, though others view them as necessary compliance checks in weak regulatory environments.
Resource Constraints and Fragmented Authority
NGT benches typically operate with limited human resources—often one judicial plus one technical member—resulting in high caseloads and variable performance across regions. Regions like the principal bench perform better, while backlogs persist at Delhi, Chennai, and other zones Reddit.
Further, environmental enforcement is distributed across Central and state agencies, with inconsistent coordination and differing institutional capacities.
Strategic Outlook & Reform Imperatives
To strengthen judicial review, experts propose:
-
Clarifying NGT jurisdiction and suo motu powers through legislative guidelines to balance proactive oversight with procedural consistency.
-
Expanding bench resources, capacity, and expert panels to expedite technical adjudication and regional hearing.
-
Institutionalizing collection mechanisms for environmental compensation through statutory support and enforcement linkage to budget disbursal.
-
Promoting procedural rigor and natural justice in NGT's internal operating protocols—ensuring hearings, disclosure, and defensible orders.
-
Strengthening data-driven monitoring tools and cooperation between NGT, CPCB, SEIAs, and project proponents to follow through on compliance.
Conclusion
Judicial review of environmental clearances—anchored in key precedents like the 2025 Supreme Court ruling and sustained NGT enforcement—has enhanced India’s environmental governance. These interventions have reaffirmed vital constitutional principles: prior EC is non-negotiable, and environmental harm cannot be normalised through retrospective approvals.
While the judiciary’s enforcement has delivered transformative decisions—from cancelling faulty EIAs to fining violators and directing restoration—it continues to face challenges in enforcement realism, resource constraints, procedural robustness, and institutional coordination.
Ongoing reforms must focus on enhancing NGT’s effectiveness, enabling enforcement follow-up, clarifying review mandates, and embedding environmental compliance within project lifecycles. Only then can judicial review evolve from post-facto remedy to reformative governance—a true force for environmental justice and ecological stewardship in the constitutional framework.