India pushes for stronger eco-friendly policies to protect future generations

India’s Supreme Court has always played a very important role in protecting the environment. Over the years, the Court has passed many strong orders to make sure that development does not damage nature. But a recent decision of the Supreme Court has raised serious concerns. It has recalled its earlier order from May 16, which had clearly said that projects that start work without environmental permission cannot get approvals later.

This earlier order was important because it sent a strong message: no project can begin before getting proper environmental clearance. It encouraged companies and governments to follow the rules before starting construction or operations. But now, by recalling that order, the Court has opened the door for “post-facto” or retrospective approvals. This means that even if a project begins without permission, it may still get approval later simply because a lot of money has already been spent on it.

The Supreme Court said it changed its earlier stand because many public projects worth nearly Rs 20,000 crore could be demolished or delayed if the old decision remained in place. The Court also mentioned the large number of investments and the huge financial consequences of cancelling such projects. These reasons are understandable, because wasting public money and delaying important projects can harm the economy and affect many people.

However, the Court’s decision has also created a dangerous impression. It suggests that powerful companies or government bodies may be able to break environmental rules and still get permission later. This gives rise to a belief that those with influence, money, or political support can make the law bend for them. This perception harms the trust people have in India’s environmental governance system.

Why environmental approvals must come first

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an essential part of environmental law. This process checks the possible harm a project can cause to forests, rivers, wetlands, air quality, animal habitats, groundwater, and local communities. The whole purpose of this assessment is to understand and prevent damage before the project begins. If a project is allowed to start operations without approval and then receives permission later, the harm might already be irreversible.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in his strong dissent, highlighted exactly this danger. He warned that allowing post-facto clearances encourages a harmful attitude: start the work first, break the rules, and ask for forgiveness later. This approach goes directly against India’s environmental principles and against the constitutional duty to protect life, health, and ecology. His words are an important reminder that laws exist not just on paper but to prevent real harm to people and nature.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has changed its earlier order without any change in facts. In the JSW Bhushan Power insolvency case, the Court first cancelled the company’s resolution plan and ordered liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. But later, the Court recalled this order after the company said it had invested heavily, restarted operations, and created 25,000 jobs. The Court then allowed the plan to continue because reversing it would cause major financial issues and loss of employment.

While such reasoning looks practical, it creates a worrying pattern. Companies or agencies may believe they can violate rules, make big investments, create jobs, and later use these reasons to justify their actions. This can result in two sets of rules—strict rules for ordinary people or small companies, and flexible rules for big and powerful entities.

ALSO READ: A simple daily breathing test can reveal early signs of lung trouble

ALSO READ: New strategies aim to reshape global tech growth and future manufacturing

India has seen similar trends before. In the early 2000s, Reliance Infocomm provided full-mobility telecom services even though it only had a limited-mobility licence. Instead of stopping the service, the scale of the operation was considered, and the rules were changed to fit what the company had already done. This gave the impression that large players can shape the rules after breaking them.

But the 2G telecom case later showed the opposite: when illegal licences were cancelled, the sector did not collapse. Instead, the industry became more transparent and competitive. This shows that following the law from the beginning leads to long-term health and fairness in a sector.

Why equal rules are important for the future

The key issue in the present situation is not that investments or jobs are unimportant—they are extremely important for India’s growth. The real issue is whether the meaning of lawful conduct changes depending on who violates the rules. The law becomes weak if powerful entities can get away with violations by showing big investments later.

For a country to run smoothly and fairly, the law must apply equally to everyone. If ordinary citizens or small companies have to follow all rules strictly, big companies should also be required to do the same. The environment is a public resource, shared by everyone. Damage to forests, rivers, lakes, or air quality affects all people, especially the poor and vulnerable.

The Supreme Court has always been a strong guardian of India’s environment. It has protected forests, wildlife, rivers, and the rights of communities living close to nature. To maintain this legacy, the Court must ensure that environmental laws are not weakened. Development is important, but development without accountability does long-term harm.

India’s future depends on achieving both economic progress and environmental protection. Only a strong, fair, and consistent legal system can make this possible. The Supreme Court must remain the protector of environmental rule of law—not a facilitator of shortcuts or bypasses. Sustainable development requires strong safeguards, not weaker ones.