Environment · 31 Jul 2026

ex post facto environmental clearance Supreme Court 2026

With reference to the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling on ex post facto environmental clearances, consider the following statements:

  1. The Court struck down the Centre's 2021 Office Memorandum as an unconstitutional override of the binding 2006 EIA Notification.
  2. The Court also struck down the 2017 one-time amnesty notification as unlawful.
  3. The 2026 ruling was applied retrospectively, invalidating existing clearances such as those for AIIMS Odisha and Vijayapura Airport.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 only
B1 and 2 only
C2 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Tests the ability to distinguish which of two related legal instruments was struck down versus upheld and whether a ruling applies prospectively or retrospectively.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: SC Strikes Down Centre's 2021 Retrospective Environmental Clearance Order
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 31 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court struck down the 2021 Office Memorandum on July 29, 2026, closing a five-year window during which projects could begin construction before obtaining environmental clearance.

Why for UPSC

UPSC frequently tests whether a ruling was applied prospectively or retrospectively and which of two related instruments (the 2017 notification vs the 2021 OM) was actually struck down versus upheld.

Prelims summary

The SC struck down the 2021 OM as an unconstitutional override of the 2006 EIA Notification, upheld the narrower 2017 amnesty and applied the ruling prospectively, leaving existing clearances undisturbed.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.