The Vanashakti verdict is balanced and pragmatic

Meanwhile, the Vanashakti verdict is balanced and pragmatic The top court's verdict closes existing environmental clearance regularisation routes while leaving scope for a new framework.

Key points

• 'The judgment reinforces the principle that environmental governance should combine strict enforcement with practical and scientifically sound regulatory solutions' Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto.
• Importantly, the Court has not directed the central administration to introduce a new regularisation scheme.
• The Court has additionally indicated the safeguards that such a notification must incorporate.
• The Court has created an notable distinction between an administrative office memorandum.
• The present judgment acknowledges this practical reality without compromising the fundamental principle that prior EC remains mandatory.

Notably, the Supreme Court of India's landmark judgment delivered on July 29, 2026 in Vanashakti vs Union of India has brought much-needed clarity to one of the most debated problems in environmental regulation: the fate of projects that commenced without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC).

While the judgment firmly reiterates that obtaining prior EC is a mandatory legal requirement under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification (EIA) Notification, 2006, it additionally provides an notable policy direction that could have far-reaching implications for thousands of industries, infrastructure projects and real estate developments throughout India.

Notably, the Court has categorically held that project proponents who commenced construction or operations without obtaining prior EC and that did not apply under the earlier violation mechanisms, cannot now seek regularisation under the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Standard Operating Procedure (Office Memorandum). Those mechanisms are no longer available for fresh cases.

At first glance, this may appear to shut the door completely on pending violation projects. Nevertheless, a closer reading of the judgment reveals a far more balanced and pragmatic approach. One of the most significant aspects is the Court's recognition that the central administration continues to possess the statutory power under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to frame a fresh statutory mechanism for dealing with violation cases, if considered necessary in the larger public interest.

In practice, the Court has created an notable distinction between an administrative office memorandum. It cannot override the requirement of prior EC, and a statutory notification issued under the powers conferred by the Environment (Protection) Act. While the former has been held to be legally unsustainable, the latter remains a permissible legislative option, provided it is carefully designed within the framework of environmental law.

This observation is projected to have significant policy implications. Throughout India, numerous industrial units, commercial developments, infrastructure projects and public utility projects remain in violation of the EC requirements for various reasons. While some simply failed to obtain the necessary approvals before commencement, some projects proceeded due to regulatory uncertainty, others due to an incorrect interpretation of the law. Plenty of such projects never applied under the earlier violation windows and have therefore been left without a legal pathway after the closure of the 2017 scheme and the striking down of the 2021 Office Memorandum.

Notably, the present judgment acknowledges this practical reality without compromising the fundamental principle that prior EC remains mandatory. Where there is a balancing act.

Importantly, the Court has not directed the central administration to introduce a new regularisation scheme. Instead, it has clarified that the administration may, if it considers it necessary, in the larger public interest, problem a fresh statutory notification providing a one-time opportunity for specified categories of violation projects.

For context, the Court has additionally indicated the safeguards that such a notification must incorporate. Any future scheme cannot become a permanent "violate first, regularise later" mechanism. Instead, it should be strictly one-time, backed by statutory authority, and should include comprehensive environmental safeguards such as environmental damage assessment, remediation measures, environmental compensation and strict compliance conditions.

This balanced approach attempts to reconcile two equally significant objectives. While on the other, indiscriminate closure or demolition of every violation project may not always serve either environmental protection or the larger public interest, particularly where projects are otherwise environmentally acceptable and substantial investments have already been created, on one hand, environmental laws cannot encourage deliberate violations by allowing routine post-facto approvals.

For project developers, industries and infrastructure agencies, the immediate message is straightforward. No fresh applications can now be created under the earlier violation mechanisms. Nevertheless, the judgment additionally leaves open the possibility that the central administration may formulate a fresh statutory framework to address pending violation cases in an environmentally responsible manner.

Whether such a policy initiative will be undertaken now rests entirely with the central administration. Given the sizeable number of pending projects throughout various sectors, industry associations, infrastructure developers, environmental professionals and other stakeholders are projected to closely watch the government's next steps. The judgment has effectively closed the old regulatory route but has simultaneously acknowledged that Parliament's environmental legislation still provides sufficient statutory authority for a carefully structured one-time solution, should the administration consider such intervention necessary.

Meanwhile, the July 2026 judgment is therefore significant not merely since it settles the legal validity of earlier violation mechanisms, but additionally since it charts the contours of any future policy on environmental regularisation. It preserves the integrity of the prior EC regime while leaving sufficient legislative space for the administration to address genuine legacy violations through a lawful, transparent, and environmentally robust statutory framework. Kalaiselvan Periyasamy is an environmental and social expert.

For now, the Vanashakti verdict is balanced and pragmatic remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.