New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the grant of retrospective environmental clearances to projects found violating environmental norms.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the maintainability of the plea, observing that a writ petition cannot be used to seek a review of a previous judgment.
“All this is just for media publicity,” the bench remarked, expressing displeasure over the manner in which the petition had been filed.
The CJI asked the petitioner’s counsel why a review petition had not been filed against the earlier verdict. “Why did you not file a review? You are raising all these grounds in a writ. How can you seek a review of a judgment through a writ petition? If you attempt that, be prepared to face exemplary costs,” the bench cautioned.
The court further observed that the issue had already been decided by a larger bench in review proceedings and suggested that the fresh petition was effectively an indirect attempt to revisit that ruling.
“There was a judgment. It was set aside by a larger bench in review. Now you are indirectly filing a review petition. Please tell us how this writ is maintainable? We understand the design behind such petitions,” the CJI told the counsel representing Ramesh.
With the bench unwilling to proceed, Ramesh’s lawyer sought permission to withdraw the petition. The court allowed the withdrawal, granting liberty to pursue remedies available under the law.
Background of the Case
On November 18 last year, the apex court, by a 2:1 majority, reversed its earlier verdict and permitted the Centre and other authorities to grant ex-post facto environmental clearances to projects that had violated norms, subject to heavy penalties.
The court had reasoned that failing to allow such clearances could result in the demolition of numerous public infrastructure projects constructed at a cost of nearly ₹20,000 crore, leading to substantial public loss.
An earlier judgment dated May 16 had barred the Centre from granting retrospective environmental approvals. However, the larger bench recalled that ruling, paving the way for conditional regularisation of projects.
During Thursday’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that ex-post facto environmental clearances were legally flawed and claimed that the cause of action arose after the latest judgment.
The bench, however, questioned whether a government notification issued in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment could be challenged through a writ petition in such a manner.
“If you are aggrieved by the judgment, you know your remedy. How can you seek a review of a judgment in a writ petition?” the court observed, reiterating its stance before permitting withdrawal.
