Why in the News?

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recalled its May 16 verdict that had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) to construction projects as a “gross illegality” and “anathema” to environmental laws. This decision had struck down a 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum of the Union Government that allows such retrospective clearances.

Key Points of Decision

1. Majority Opinion:
   • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled to recall the May 16 verdict, which had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) as illegal.
   • The majority emphasized the public interest in avoiding the demolition of ongoing construction projects, which could lead to significant financial losses and job cuts.
   • They argued that retrospective clearances should be an exceptional measure rather than a routine practice, and these projects could continue if heavy penalties were imposed for violations.
2. Dissenting Opinion:
   • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, critiquing the majority for undermining environmental jurisprudence.
   • Justice Bhuyan argued that granting ex post facto ECs violates the precautionary principle and undermines sustainable development, as it encourages illegal constructions that bypass environmental laws.
   • He emphasized that environmental protection should not be compromised for development purposes.

Implications of the Judgement

• Development vs Environment: The decision underscores the tension between economic development and environmental protection, highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development while addressing violations of environmental laws.
• Environmental Governance: It raises questions on judicial review of executive actions, emphasizing the need for effective regulatory compliance and policy frameworks that balance growth with ecological safeguards.
• Sustainability and Public Health: The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to environmental laws to protect natural resources and public health, which is critical for India’s long-term sustainability and policymaking.

Supreme Court’s power to review its own judgement

1.Review Petition 

• Constitutional Power: Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments.
• Exception to Finality: This acts as an exception to the doctrine of functus officio, which otherwise bars reopening finalized cases.
• Purpose: The review power corrects grave errors and prevents miscarriage of justice.

2.Curative Petition

• Last Legal Remedy: A curative petition may be filed only after the dismissal of a review petition, serving as the final avenue to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.
• Judicial Innovation: The concept was created by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) to address rare cases where judicial bias or procedural injustice is alleged.
• Purpose: It aims to correct grave violations of natural justice or abuse of the court’s process, ensuring fairness even after final judgments.

Landmark Cases where Supreme Court Reviewed its own Judgements

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela(1973): overturned the Golakhnath case(1967) by establishing the “basic structure doctrine,” which affirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but with the crucial limitation that it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. 
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2023): The Court modified its own 2018 judgment on “Advanced Medical Directives” (passive euthanasia) by altering the requirements for the composition of medical boards and removing the need for a Judicial Magistrate’s counter-signature
• Recall of the Vanashakti judgment: The Court recalled its May 16, 2025, verdict in Vanashakti vs Union of India that barred retrospective environmental clearances for projects

[UPSC 2021] With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:

1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission from the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment, as the Supreme Court does.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Options: (a) 1 only* (b) 2 only (c) (c) Both 1 and 2 only (d) (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now