Are ex post facto environmental clearances allowed?

Generally no. They are exceptional and only when strict environmental compliance is shown and major livelihood concerns exist.

How did proportionality feature in the decision?

Decisions must balance ecology and economy—protecting the environment while considering jobs, investment, and statutory policy.

What happens to projects with procedural violations?

They must undergo rigorous review, face penalties under polluter pays where needed, and meet non-negotiable safeguards.

Did the Court permit operations to continue?

Yes, interim operations could continue under strict compliance while MoEF&CC completes evaluation and takes a final call.

What principle protects future generations here?

Intergenerational equity—current use of resources must not compromise the environment for future generations.

Electrosteel Steels Ltd v. Union of India (2021)

PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Ex post facto EC, Proportionality, Sustainable development, Intergenerational equity SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: MoEF&CC, JSPCB, Forest Conservation Act, Polluter pays, Jharkhand steel plant

Quick Summary

A steel plant in Jharkhand shifted from its approved site and ran into environmental clearance (EC) trouble. The case asks: can EC be granted after the fact, and if yes, when?

The Supreme Court said ex post facto ECs are generally not allowed because they weaken environmental safeguards. Yet, in rare cases with strict compliance and strong livelihood stakes, a tightly controlled path may exist—guided by proportionality and sustainable development.

Issues

Is ex post facto EC permissible and what does it mean for compliance?
Does the principle of proportionality guide decisions on regularizing technical environmental violations?
Should units with technical irregularities but sound environmental performance face closure?

Rules

Ex Post Facto EC

As a rule, impermissible. Exceptionally possible only with strict compliance, full safeguards, and strong livelihood/public interest factors.

Proportionality

Balance environmental protection with economic realities—in line with sustainable development and intergenerational equity.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Electrosteel Steels Ltd case

Project shift: Plant built 5.3 km away from the approved site; alleged forest encroachment and lack of proper EC.

2012: MoEF&CC issued a show-cause notice for violations under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and EC conditions.

CTO denied: JSPCB refused Consent to Operate pending MoEF&CC action.

HC interim relief: Jharkhand High Court permitted temporary operations under JSPCB supervision.

2018: MoEF&CC revoked EC citing forest encroachment and site deviation; litigation deepened.

2020: Interim relief discontinued → operations suspended; appellant moved the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Electrosteel)

Plant follows environmental norms; irregularities are technical.
Closure harms jobs and investment; seek regularization under strict safeguards.
Apply proportionality to avoid extreme outcomes for minor lapses.

Respondent (Union/MoEF&CC)

Violations are substantial (site shift, forest issues); process cannot be bypassed.
Ex post facto EC undermines the precautionary approach.
Any relaxation must ensure deterrence via penalties and strict compliance.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment illustration for Electrosteel Steels Ltd case

Ex post facto EC is generally impermissible. It may be considered only in rare, exceptional settings with demonstrable strict compliance and strong livelihood concerns.
Authorities must apply proportionality—balance environmental protection with economic and social impacts consistent with sustainable development and intergenerational equity.
Projects with procedural lapses require rigorous evaluation, application of polluter pays where appropriate, and non-negotiable safeguards.
Appellant could resume operations under interim relief, subject to stringent compliance, pending MoEF&CC’s final decision.

Ratio Decidendi

Prevention first, regularization last. Post-facto approvals risk diluting environmental governance; any exception demands strict scrutiny, penalties where due, and robust safeguards—calibrated through proportionality.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the narrow doorway for ex post facto ECs.
Centers proportionality in environmental decision-making.
Signals that procedural discipline and worker livelihoods both count.

Key Takeaways

Post-facto EC: rare, not routine.

Use proportionality to calibrate remedies.

Safeguards & audits are mandatory.

Polluter pays where harm or risk is shown.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Fix, Fit, Filter.”

Fix lapses—no blanket forgiveness.
Fit the remedy—apply proportionality.
Filter risk—strict safeguards and audits.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Legality of ex post facto EC for a site-shifted plant and how to treat technical violations vis-à-vis closure.

Rule

Post-facto EC is typically barred; proportionality, sustainable development, and intergenerational equity steer decisions.

Application

Strict compliance checks, penalties if due, and conditional operations ensure environment and livelihoods are both respected.

Conclusion

Exceptionally allow interim operation with stringent safeguards while MoEF&CC completes its final evaluation.

Glossary

Environmental Clearance (EC): Regulatory approval needed before starting certain projects with environmental impact.
Ex Post Facto: “After the event”—seeking approval after starting or completing activity.
Proportionality: Fit between the violation and the response—neither too harsh nor too lax.
Polluter Pays: Polluters must bear the cost of damage and restoration.