Vanashakti v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 29 July 2026, 3 judges, 2026 INSC 761
On rehearing after Vanashakti-I was recalled, the Court upheld the 2017 Notification as a valid, narrowly tailored amnesty for projects lacking prior environmental clearance, and quashed the 2021 Office Memorandum with prospective effect.
Facts
The writ petitions challenged the MoEFCC notification of 14.03.2017 and office memorandum of 07.07.2021, which allowed appraisal and grant of environmental clearance (EC) to projects begun without the prior EC required by the EIA Notification, 2006. The civil appeals challenged only the prospective operation of the Madras High Court's judgment in Fatima v. Union of India quashing the 2021 OM. A two-Judge Bench struck down both instruments on 16.05.2025 (Vanashakti-I). On review sought by CREDAI, a three-Judge Bench by 2:1 (Bhuyan J. dissenting), on 18.11.2025, allowed the review and recalled Vanashakti-I, and the matters were restored and placed before this Bench. Gavai C.J. gave the lead opinion, and Chandran J. concurred on a narrower ground.
Questions before the Court
- Does the 1986 Act read with the 2006 Notification mandate a prior environmental clearance, and what follows on its breach?
- Do Common Cause and Alembic conflict with Electrosteel, Pahwa and D. Swamy, or can they be reconciled?
- Is the 2017 Notification a valid measure under the 1986 Act, and is the 2021 OM ultra vires the Act, the Rules and the 2006 Notification?
- Was the prospective quashing in Fatima justified, and what becomes of ECs granted and applications pending under the two instruments?
What the Court held
- The review was allowed on two grounds only: Vanashakti-I did not notice the paragraphs in which Common Cause, Alembic and Electrosteel moulded relief, and did not consider Pahwa and D. Swamy. Because Chandran J. concurred only on those grounds, the lead opinion's views on the instruments' validity do not bind, and validity was decided afresh.
- Prior EC under the 2006 Notification is mandatory. Unless amended by notification, it does not allow post facto EC or retention of projects begun without valid EC; breach leads by necessary implication to restoration of status quo ante, extending to closure, demolition, remediation and recovery of costs. Section 3 still permits a narrowly tailored amnesty notification in supervening public interest.
- The 2017 Notification is valid delegated legislation under Section 3 of the 1986 Act read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Limited to existing violations and a six-month window, with central appraisal, damage assessment and remediation, it meets reasonable classification and proportionality. The observations in Pahwa and D. Swamy on it are approved.
- The 2021 OM is an administrative order creating a perpetual regime that supplants delegated legislation. Its only differentia is that a project is permissible, so it fails Article 14 and proportionality and violates Articles 14 and 21. Pahwa and D. Swamy are overruled to the extent they treat it as valid and traceable to the 2017 Notification.
- Using Article 142, the OM is quashed only prospectively. ECs granted under either instrument stay valid unless individually challenged; pending applications proceed according to law, and those rejected solely due to the stay or Vanashakti-I may be reconsidered; no fresh applications are entertained. Future administrative orders granting ex post facto EC are barred, save by a valid Section 3 notification.
- Electrosteel's observation that the 1986 Act and the 2006 Notification accommodate ex post facto EC does not correctly interpret them. Civil Appeal Nos. 381-382 of 2025, against the prospective operation of the Madras High Court's judgment in Fatima, were dismissed. The Court's own Article 142 power to grant ex post facto EC is kept.
Why it matters
This judgment did not itself review anything: it reheard the matters after the Review order of 18.11.2025 recalled Vanashakti-I. It holds that the binding ratio of the split Review order is limited to the grounds on which the concurring Judges agreed. On the merits it reconciles the two lines of authority on ex post facto EC, overrules Pahwa and D. Swamy in part, holds an observation in Electrosteel incorrect, and sets out reasonable classification and proportionality tests for any amnesty from the prior EC requirement.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In our view, the review was allowed upon two grounds alone, that Vanashakti-I failed to notice the paragraphs in which Common Cause, Alembic and Electrosteel (supra) moulded the relief, and that it did not consider the coordinate Bench decisions in Pahwa and D. Swamy (supra). The recall did not, and could not, rest upon a conclusive pronouncement on the merits.”
“The prior EC regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory and unless amended by an appropriate notification, would not accommodate grant of post facto EC or retention of projects where constructions have commenced or processes begun without a valid EC.”
“We approve the observations in Pahwa and D. Swamy with regard to the 2017 Notification and hold that the said amending notification is a valid narrowly tailored and time-bound delegated legislation traceable to Section 3 of the 1986 Act read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.”
“The 2021 OM is an administrative order and envisages a perpetual regime for grant of EC to projects undertaken without prior EC. It substantially alters the nature of enquiry as well as the criteria for grant of EC under the 2006 Notification. 2021 OM thereby supplants an earlier delegated legislation through an administrative instruction, which is impermissible in law.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Section 15, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897
- EIA Notification, 2006 (prior environmental clearance)
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 142, Constitution
Related judgments
- Follows Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)“also repair of the mischief already caused, as held in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (supra)” (page 39)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Vanashakti v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (C) No. 1394 of 2023, with Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2019, Writ Petition (C) No. 115 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 381-382 of 2025, SLP (C) No. 8187 of 2025 and connected applications
- Decided
- 29 July 2026
- Bench
- Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M. Pancholi
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment written by Joymalya Bagchi, J. and signed by all three Judges; there is no separate opinion.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
Match the Supreme Court judgments of July 2026 (List I) with the Bench that delivered them (List II): List I A. Vanashakti v. Union of India B. Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. C. Tejas J. Shah v. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. D. Manjula Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh List II 1. Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. 2. Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. 3. Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. 4. P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.
- A. A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3
- B. A-4, B-3, C-2, D-1
- C. A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2
- D. A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2
Show the answer
C. A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2
Vanashakti (2026 INSC 761) was decided by a three-Judge Bench presided over by the Chief Justice; Pooja Ramesh Singh (2026 INSC 668) by Narasimha and Aradhe, JJ.; Tejas J. Shah (2026 INSC 746) by Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.; and Manjula Kapoor (2026 INSC 789) by Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
Consider the following statements about Vanashakti v. Union of India (29 July 2026): 1. The Notification of 14 March 2017 was upheld as narrowly tailored, time-bound delegated legislation traceable to Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 2. The Court held that the Central Government has no power to frame any amnesty scheme for projects that began without prior environmental clearance. 3. Environmental clearances already granted under the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum remain valid unless individually challenged in accordance with law. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 1 and 3 only
- B. 1, 2 and 3
- C. 2 and 3 only
- D. 1 only
Show the answer
A. 1 and 3 only
Statements 1 and 3 reflect paragraph 80(v) and (vii). Statement 2 is wrong: the Court held that the Central Government has ample power under Section 3 to issue a narrowly tailored amnesty notification in supervening public interest, and only barred future ex post facto clearances by administrative orders.
Question 3, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
In Vanashakti v. Union of India, decided on 29 July 2026, a three-Judge Bench examined instruments permitting environmental clearance for projects begun without prior clearance. It held that the Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2021:
- A. is valid, but only for projects undertaken by Central Government departments and public sector bodies
- B. was valid delegated legislation under Section 3 of the 1986 Act and is upheld in its entirety
- C. is void from inception, so that every clearance already granted under it stands cancelled forthwith
- D. is an administrative order that could not supplant the 2006 Notification and is quashed prospectively
Show the answer
D. is an administrative order that could not supplant the 2006 Notification and is quashed prospectively
The Bench of Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. (2026 INSC 761) held that the 2021 OM, a perpetual amnesty by administrative order, supplanted delegated legislation, failed proportionality and violated Articles 14 and 21. It was quashed with prospective effect, and clearances already granted remain valid unless individually challenged.