This legal document pertains to a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning environmental law, specifically the requirement for prior environmental clearance (EC) under the Environment Protection Act. The Court emphasizes that ex post facto or retrospective ECs are fundamentally incompatible with environmental jurisprudence, which mandates that projects obtain clearance before commencement to prevent environmental degradation.

The Court scrutinizes various notifications and office memoranda issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, including the 2006, 2017, and 2021 regulations, as well as related judicial orders and procedural guidelines. It highlights that these regulations, especially those permitting ex post facto clearances, are either invalid or contrary to the statutory and constitutional principles of environmental protection.

The Court discusses the evolution of environmental jurisprudence, reaffirming that environmental laws are rooted in the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the principle of sustainable development. It underscores that allowing retrospective ECs undermines these principles, potentially leading to irreversible ecological harm.

The judgment also addresses the implications of the earlier legal positions, noting that certain judgments and notifications were not properly considered or were rendered in ignorance of binding legal principles, thus being per incuriam and not binding as precedents. It stresses that judicial discipline and adherence to established jurisprudence are crucial for maintaining consistency and credibility.

Furthermore, the Court recognizes the practical and economic hardships faced by project proponents due to the strict stance on prior EC, especially where projects have been completed or are near completion based on earlier relaxations or legal ambiguities. It advocates a balanced approach that considers environmental protection alongside economic and public interests, emphasizing that projects otherwise permissible in law should not be unduly penalized or demolished unless legally required.

In conclusion, the Court allows a review petition to recall a previous judgment, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal principles and precedents. It underscores that environmental regulation must be progressive and non-retrogressive, aligning with international commitments and constitutional mandates, and that any relaxation of legal requirements must be justified within the framework of law and environmental sustainability.