Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) vs Vanashakti 2025 INSC 1326 - Environment Protection Act - Ex Post Facto EC - Vana Shakthi Judgment Recalled
Environmental Law - 2017 Notification - Supreme Court recalls its judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India - By 2:1 majority, SC held: Demolition of the projects already completed would rather than being in public interest would result in throwing the valuable public resources in dustbin- if the (Judgment Under Review) JUR is permitted to operate rather than protecting the environment, it would result in creating even more pollution- If such large number of buildings/projects which have been completed or are near completion are demolished and they could be reconstructed shortly thereafter after obtaining EC as they were otherwise permissible; it would result in nothing but creating more pollution which could not have been the intention of the JUR.
Environment (Protection) Act -Section 15 deals with the aspect of penalty alone. Neither does it permit nor prohibit the regularization of the underlying project. Thus, the observations in JUR that perusal of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the EP Act, shows that even after the payment of penalty if the project is under construction, the same has to be stopped and demolished, and even if the operation has already commenced, the same has to be stopped and demolished, does not correctly interpret the provisions of Section 15 of the EP Act. (Para 100 of CJI Judgment)
Precedent - A Bench of two-Judges is bound by an earlier view taken by the other two-Judge Benches. If, however, a subsequent Bench of two Judges considers the law laid down earlier by another two-Judges Bench requires reconsideration, the only option available to it is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. A Bench of two-Judges cannot take a view contrary to the view taken by a Bench of co-equal strength- The judgment delivered by a subsequent Bench of two Judges in ignorance of the earlier judgment of a Bench of co-equal strength is per incuriam in law. (Paras 82,83 & 122 of CJI Judgment)
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) vs Vanashakti and Another.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1326.
- Court: Supreme Court of India, Inherent/Original Jurisdiction.
- Review petition: Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41929 of 2025; arising in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1394 of 2023 and connected W.P.(C) No. 118 of 2019, W.P.(C) No. 115 of 2024, and Civil Appeals Nos. 381–382 of 2025.
- Judgment date: November 18, 2025.
Coram
- B.R. Gavai, CJI.
- Ujjal Bhuyan, J. (dissent).
- K. Vinod Chandran, J. (concurring with CJI).
Outcome
- Majority: Review allowed; judgment dated May 16, 2025 (JUR) recalled; writs and appeals restored for fresh consideration.
- Dissent (Bhuyan, J.): Review dismissed.
Caselaws and Citations
- Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499.
- Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157.
- Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 615.
- D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, (2023) 20 SCC 469.
- Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, (2023) 12 SCC 774.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
- Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1.
- Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
- Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623.
- Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682.
- A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602.
- M.C.D. v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101.
- State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639.
- Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356.
- State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer, (2003) 5 SCC 448.
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1263.
- Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda, 2025 INSC 784.
- Fatima v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4514.
- Puducherry Environment Protection Association v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 7056.
- Appaswamy Real Estates Ltd. v. Puducherry Environment Protection Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1283.
- Tanaji B. Gambhire v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 961.
- Dastak NGO v. Synochem Organics (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 131.
- Vineet Nagar v. Central Ground Water Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 139.
- Goa Foundation (1) v. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 559.
- Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338.
- Electrotherm (India) Ltd. v. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai, (2016) 9 SCC 300.
- S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595.
- Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 3 SCC 193.
- Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 2157.
- S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine NGT 169.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (running WP(C) No. 202 of 1995).
- Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 8 SCC 552.
- Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.
- Jayant Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 743.
- State of Gujarat v. Utility Users’ Welfare Assn., (2018) 6 SCC 21.
- Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232.
- N. Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 13 SCC 217.
- State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills, 1985 Supp SCC 280.
- Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, (2023) 16 SCC 458.
- Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1.
- Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481.
Statutes and Laws Referred
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Sections 3(1), 3(2)(v), 15, 19.
- Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: Rule 5(3)(d).
- General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 21.
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: Section 21(5).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 432(7) (in cited cases).
- Constitution of India: Articles 141, 142, 21, 51A(g).
- EIA Notifications: 1994; 2006; Notification S.O. 804(E) dated March 14, 2017 (violation cases window).
- MOEF&CC Office Memorandum dated July 7, 2021 (SOP for violation cases).
- Earlier OMs: December 12, 2012; June 27, 2013 (held invalid by courts).
- International instruments referenced: Rio Declaration (1992), Rio+20 (2012), Paris Agreement (2015) — in context of non-regression.
#SupremeCourt (2:1) recalls its Vanashakthi judgment delivered earlier this year.
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 18, 2025
CJI BR Gavai, with who Justice Vinod Chandran agreed with, noted that “demolition of the projects already completed would rather than being in public interest would result in throwing the valuable… https://t.co/dvVftKn8zZ pic.twitter.com/IvtYTN8Ra0
#SupremeCourt (CJI judgment) says that, Vanashakthi Judgment (authored by Justice AS Oka) erred in interpreting Section 15 of Environment Protection Act: https://t.co/dvVftKnGpx pic.twitter.com/lg9T4FqZZL
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 18, 2025
#SupremeCourt CJI says that its Vanashakthi would result in creating even more pollution:
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 18, 2025
If such large number of buildings/projects which have been completed or are near completion are demolished and they could be reconstructed shortly thereafter after obtaining EC as they were… https://t.co/m14g3703KU pic.twitter.com/4EU6xG2w7b
Yet another Recalling of a #SupremeCourt judgment !
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 18, 2025
On 16 May 2025, #SupremeCourt bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered Vanashakti Judgment !
On 18 November 2025, #SupremeCourt recalled this judgment.
CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran were in… https://t.co/dvVftKnGpx
"The review judgment is a step in retrogression."
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 18, 2025
In his dissenting opinion against recall of Vanashakthi Judgment, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan mentions about the Delhi Smog.
He adds that the #SupremeCourt cannot be seen backtracking on the sound environmental jurisprudence. https://t.co/dvVftKnGpx pic.twitter.com/Lge6MLymG9
Further Reading:
2017-2020: Common Cause & Alembic Pharmaceuticals
In these judgments, the Supreme Court (two judges bench) have clearly held that a retrospective EC or an ex post facto clearance is alien to environmental jurisprudence.
2021: Electrosteel
2022: Pahwal Plastics and D. Swamy
Later, in Pahwa Plastics and D. Swamy, the same bench followed Electrosteel
2025: Vanashakti
In Vanashakti, the Supreme Court (two judges bench) did not refer to Pahwa Plastics and D.Swamy, but followed Common Cause and Alembic to quash the 2017 EIA notification. It did refer to Electrosteel, but did not notice or dealt with the observations made in it qua permissibility of Ex Post Facto EC.
CaseCiter