SC Warns Jairam Ramesh Over OM Challenge

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday strongly cautioned Congress MP Jairam Ramesh over his petition challenging a Centre-issued Office Memorandum (OM) linked to environmental clearances.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the OM had been issued to implement a prior Supreme Court judgment. The bench noted that challenging the OM effectively amounted to questioning the court’s own ruling.

“Be ready for exemplary costs,” the bench said, cautioning the petitioner. The court further remarked that a judicial decision cannot ordinarily be challenged through a writ petition in such a manner.

Following the court’s warning, Ramesh withdrew his plea.

Background of the case

The matter relates to environmental clearances granted after projects had already begun operations — often referred to as “retrospective” or “ex post facto” clearances.

In May last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to live in a pollution-free environment is part of the fundamental right to life under the Constitution. At that time, the court struck down an Office Memorandum issued by the Centre that permitted post-facto environmental clearances for projects that had allegedly violated norms.

The court had observed that both the Union government and citizens have a constitutional obligation to protect the environment. It also stated that retrospective approvals, even if not explicitly described as “ex post facto,” could not be granted in violation of existing legal principles.

The earlier judgment restrained the Centre from issuing directions to grant environmental clearances in a manner that would regularise violations of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework.

Court’s remarks

During Thursday’s hearing, the bench questioned the legal basis of the fresh challenge. The judges suggested that since the OM was framed in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment, contesting it would effectively reopen issues already decided by the court.

The bench also indicated that such petitions could attract “exemplary costs” if found to be frivolous or aimed at circumventing a binding judicial ruling.

After these observations, Ramesh opted to withdraw his plea.

Broader implications

The case once again highlights the legal sensitivity around environmental regulation and retrospective approvals for development projects.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that environmental protection forms a core part of constitutional rights. Its earlier ruling underscored that government actions must align with established environmental safeguards.

With the withdrawal of the petition, the Office Memorandum issued by the Centre to implement the court’s previous decision remains in effect.