Subscribe
The Supreme Court (SC) recalled its famous ‘Vanashakti’ judgment, which barred grant of post-facto environmental clearances, by a 2:1 majority on November 18, 2025.
The application, seeking review/recall of the judgment, was considered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran. While CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran were in the majority, Justice Bhuyan, part of the original judgment, dissented.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), submitted that its project was started on the basis of the 2021 office memorandum (OM) and had almost reached finality after complying with all procedural requirements, including the conduct of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The project was at the stage of grant of environmental clearance (EC). But the EC could not be granted on account of JUR, thereby resulting in a huge loss to the public exchequer.
Mehta further submitted that the construction of an AIIMS hospital building in Odisha, comprising 962 beds, would also be affected by JUR. The construction of the building is complete and all procedural requirements, including the conduct of environment impact assessments (EIAs), have been completed. The project is at the final stage of grant of EC, submitted Mehta.
Counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state of Karnataka, gave an example of a greenfield airport at Vijayanagar. He submitted that the construction of the entire airport is completed. But it would have to be demolished now, on account of JUR.
CJI Gavai said the demolition of the projects already completed, rather than being in public interest, would result in valuable public resources being thrown into the dustbin.
Justice Chandran said the demolition of the structures raised would not only cause undue hardship but also result in further depredation of the environment by the debris generated, which will not be possible to reuse. This would lead to abject waste of resources and massive loss of revenue.
“Hence a rigid application of the regulation would be counterproductive, especially for those who adjusted their affairs on the strength of the relaxation,” he added.
Justice Bhuyan, the dissenting voice, said ‘precautionary principle’ is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. ‘Polluter pays’ is only a principle of reparation. Precautionary principle cannot be given a short shrift by relying on the polluter pays principle.
The review petition had sought recall of the SC order dated May 16, 2025. It was passed in the case of Vanashakti vs Union of India.
The SC on May 16, 2025, said ex post facto EC has been granted in certain cases both under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM. ECs already granted under 2017 notification and the 2021 OM should not be disturbed.
The SC held that the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, as well as all circulars/orders/OMs/notifications issued for giving effect to the notifications, are illegal and are struck down.
The SC order restrained the Centre from issuing circulars/orders/OMs/notifications providing for grant of ex post facto EC in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification. The apex court clarified in May 2025 that the EC already granted under the 2017 notification and 2021 office memoranda would remain unaffected.
In an 80-page judgment, the SC on November 17, 2025 passed a number of directions on tiger conservation.
The SC directed the state of Uttarakhand through its Chief Wildlife Warden, in consultation with the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), to submit a plan for the restoration of the Corbett Tiger Reserve in line with the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. All unauthorised constructions identified by the expert committee should be cleared/demolished within a period of three months and a compliance affidavit should be filed within a period of one year.
The CEC would monitor and supervise the implementation of the ecological restoration plan developed by Uttarakhand for Corbett Tiger Reserve. While developing and implementing this plan and carrying out afforestation, Uttarakhand must ensure that only native and indigenous species are identified. Special care must be taken to not introduce any alien species to the ecosystem.
The apex court directed Uttarakhand to restore the ecological damage caused to the Corbett Tiger Reserve under the supervision, guidance and control of the CEC.
The court directed that tiger safaris should not be permitted in the core part of a reserve or a critical tiger habitat area. Tiger safaris could be established on ‘non-forest land’ or ‘degraded forest land’ in buffer areas, provided that it is not part of a tiger corridor, the SC said.
Tiger safaris should be allowed only in association with a full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers where conflict animals, injured animals or abandoned animals are housed for care and rehabilitation. The safaris need to be subject to the conditions and restrictions mentioned in the report of the Expert Committee.
The bench, comprising CJI B R Gavai, Justice A G Masih and Justice A S Chandurkar, accepted the Expert Committee’s recommendations with regards to Guidelines for Tiger Safaris. It directed that they should be established and run with due consideration of the ‘Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe Areas of Tiger Reserves 2019’ issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) with some additional requirements.
The top court was informed during the proceedings that not all tiger reserves have notified eco-sensitive zones (ESZs). The SC stated that “ESZs cannot only be restricted to Sanctuaries or National Parks, and must include buffer and peripheral areas of Tiger Reserves as well”.
Therefore, the court directed all state governments “to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, no later than 1 year from the date of this judgment”.
The apex court accepted the recommendations of the committee as to what activities should be permitted, regulated and prohibited in the buffer or fringe areas of tiger reserves.
It directed state governments to take into consideration the recommendations while framing the required statutory or regulatory framework.
Prohibited activities include commercial mining; setting of saw mills; setting of industries causing pollution; commercial use of firewood for hotels and other business-related establishment; establishment of major hydroelectric projects; introduction of exotic species; use of production of any hazardous substances; undertaking activities related to tourism like overflying the tiger reserves by low flying aircraft (including drones and hot air balloons); discharge of effluents and solid waste in natural bodies or terrestrial area and felling of trees without permission from appropriate authority.
Establishment of hotels and resorts as per approved tourism prescriptions of buffer component of the Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), which takes care of habitats allowing no restriction on movement of wild animals, was allowed.
Other regulated activities included commercial use of natural water resources including groundwater harvesting. This would be as per the approved master plan which takes care of habitats allowing no restriction on movement of wild animals.
Widening of roads, movement of vehicular traffic at night and protection of hill slopes and river banks according to the master plan was also allowed. Notifying buffer areas is imperative for tiger land tenure dynamics to operate in a landscape and to effectively implement the landscape approach to conservation, the SC said.
The court directed all states to notify buffer and core areas of tiger reserves within six months. They also have to prepare a TCP within a period of three months. The SC directed that the steering committee, if not yet constituted for each tiger reserve, should be formed within two months.
States should adhere to the NTCA guidelines on tourism, “thus adopting the overarching aim for regulation to move towards a system of community-based tourism around Tiger Reserves”. Its prescription against night tourism in entirety, was also approved.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and CEC have to jointly set up a special cell to review and assess staffing patterns and cadre requirements in all tiger reserves. This has to be completed in a time-bound manner, no later than within one year, the order said.
The NGT on November 18, 2025, took up the case of the alleged illegal construction of a highway by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) that encroaches upon a protected pond in the southwest district of Delhi.
The counsel appearing for the Delhi Wetland Authority stated that though the wetland is being protected by the Authority, it is not notified. The counsel sought time to place the stand of the Delhi Wetland Authority on record.
The NGT was also informed that a writ petition (WP C No 16669/2024) is pending before the Delhi High Court on the same issue wherein the NHAI is also a party. The MoEFCC also sought time to obtain instruction if the issue of construction of a pillar on the water body was considered by it while granting the EC.
The original application was registered suo motu on the basis of a news item titled NHAI has made highway at protected pond site in Delhi activists appearing in the Times of India on September 30, 2024. According to the news item, NHAI built the Urban Extension Road-II over the pond in Goyla Khurd village, which was among the list of over 1,000 ponds to be protected.