SC by 2:1 majority recalls verdict barring post-facto green clearances, Justice Bhuyan dissents
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, on Tuesday recalled its May 16 judgment that had prohibited the Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs) to projects found violating environmental norms.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered three separate verdicts on a batch of nearly 40 review and modification pleas filed against the Vanshakti judgment.
The May 16 verdict by a bench of Justice A S Oka, since retired, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had barred the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and the authorities concerned from granting retrospective ECs to projects which are found in violation of environmental norms.
CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran recalled the May 16 verdict and placed the matter before an appropriate bench for reconsideration of the issues afresh.
“Public projects of Rs 20,000 crore will have to be demolished if the clearance is not reviewed. In my judgment, I have allowed the recall. My judgment has been criticised by my brother..Justice Bhuyan,” the CJI said.
Justice Bhuyan delivered a strong dissent, holding that retrospective clearances are unknown to environmental law.
He maintained that “there is no concept of ex-post facto environmental clearance in environmental law,” describing the very idea as “an anathema, a curse devoted to evil, to environmental jurisprudence.”
The CJI said the court had “found that in the 2013 notification as well as the 2021 Office Memorandum, the scheme was to permit grant of environmental clearance on the imposition of heavy penalties.”
The detailed judgement is awaited.
On October 9, a bench headed by the CJI had reserved the verdict after hearing several senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for various industrial and infrastructural entities as well as government bodies, in favour of the review or modification of the impugned judgement.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
VHP warns of statewide stir in Karnataka against move to ease cattle transport law
Udupi (Karnataka) (PTI): The VHP on Saturday demanded the immediate withdrawal of a proposed amendment to the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, accusing the state government of weakening a law that has deterred illegal cattle transport.
The organisation's Go Raksha Wing, Karnataka South, has also announced district-level protests on December 8.
According to officials, the existing law mandates a bank guarantee for securing the release of vehicles seized for alleged illegal cattle transportation.
On December 4, the state Cabinet proposed an amendment enabling the release of such vehicles on an indemnity bond instead.
ASLO READ: UP govt to build protective walls around Ambedkar statues: Adityanath
Addressing reporters in Udupi, VHP leader and Prantha Goraksha Pramukh Sunil K R, said the government's move amounted to "sympathy for cattle lifters" and claimed that it was part of broader actions "targeting Hindus".
He argued that the law in its current form is stringent and has played a crucial role in reducing incidents of illegal cattle transport and theft.
Under the Act, vehicles involved in offences can be surrendered and, upon conviction, permanently seized by authorities. "Diluting these provisions will embolden offenders," Sunil said.
The VHP leader warned that easing the process of vehicle release would not only encourage violators but also result in rising cruelty against cattle.
Sunil further claimed that the strict enforcement of the 2020 law had brought down cases of cattle-related offences significantly. Rolling back these provisions, he said, could reverse those gains and would lead to an increase in illegal transport.
He reiterated that the government must reconsider its decision and preserve the integrity of the existing law.
