Environment · 22 Aug 2026

Vanashakti judgment environmental clearance

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's judgment in Vanashakti vs Union of India (2026):

  1. The Court quashed the 2021 Office Memorandum that had allowed post-facto environmental clearance.
  2. The Court held that an administrative circular cannot legally create an exception to the mandatory requirement of prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006.
  3. The judgment permanently bars the Central Government from ever notifying a fresh scheme to regularise projects built without prior Environmental Clearance.
A1 only
B2 only
C1 and 2 only
D1, 2 and 3
This question is based on: The Supreme Court Didn't Ban Regularising Violations - It Banned Doing It By Memorandum
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 22 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court's Vanashakti judgment has closed the existing administrative routes for regularising projects built without prior environmental clearance while preserving Parliament's delegated statutory power to design a fresh, safeguard-bound mechanism, reshaping the legal landscape for thousands of pending violation cases.

Why for UPSC

UPSC often tests whether a judicial door-closing is total or partial - here the Court closes an administrative pathway while explicitly leaving a statutory one open, a distinction easy to overstate if read carelessly.

Prelims summary

Prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory; only a statutory instrument under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - not an administrative circular like the 2021 OM - can legally create a regularisation exception to it.

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.