AARM urges Supreme Court to restore ban on post-facto clearance of projects

The Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch (AARM) has strongly opposed the Supreme Court’s recent judgement allowing post-facto environmental clearances for projects that began operations without obtaining prior approval.

In a press statement, the Manch argued that the judgement reverses the earlier Vanashakti verdict of the Supreme Court, which had struck down the Centre’s notification permitting post-facto clearances. Calling the latest ruling “regressive” and “a reward for violators,” the AARM said it undermines the precautionary principle crucial to environmental assessment.

AARM chairperson Jitendra Chaudhury said the decision strengthens the Central government's “pro-corporate approach” by diluting the requirement for rigorous Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). He criticised the Supreme Court for accepting a review petition filed by private real estate developers—who he said have a vested interest in bypassing prior clearances—despite no review plea from the concerned ministry.

The AARM endorsed the dissenting opinion of Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan, who was part of both the current bench with CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, as well as the earlier bench that delivered the Vanashakti judgement. Justice Bhuiyan reiterated that the right to a safe environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and warned against treating environmental compliance as an obstacle to development.

Chaudhury further warned that the judgement will have severe consequences for Adivasi communities, particularly those in mineral-rich regions. It would, he said, enable mining and power companies to begin operations without an EIA or adherence to laws safeguarding Adivasi rights, and later seek clearance as a fait accompli.

He stressed that the ruling undermines both the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which mandate prior consultation and consent of Gram Sabhas. Citing a recent incident in Chhattisgarh, he noted that a mining company had felled trees without legal clearances or Gram Sabha consent, and the court permitted it post-facto on grounds that “nothing could be done now.”

The AARM has demanded a further review of the judgement and the restoration of the Vanashakti ruling authored by Justice Abhay Oka in 2025.