Senior Congress leader and former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has issued a strong appeal to the Supreme Court of India, urging it to put an immediate stop to the practice of granting retrospective environmental approvals. His statement, made on December 30, 2025, specifically references the contentious review of the Sariska Tiger Reserve boundary, a move he has sharply criticized.
A Fundamental Flaw in Jurisprudence
Ramesh argued that granting environmental clearances after a project has begun or been completed strikes at the very heart of legal principles. "Such approvals go against the very foundations of jurisprudence and make a mockery of governance," he stated emphatically. The veteran politician stressed that the concept of retrospective sanction in environmental matters undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent for conservation efforts across the country.
The Sariska Boundary Revision: An "Uncalled For" Review
The context of Ramesh's remarks is the reported revision of the boundary for the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan. He labeled this review as "uncalled for," implying it was an unnecessary exercise that could potentially dilute protections for the critical tiger habitat. While the exact details of the revision were not elaborated in his brief statement, the implication is clear: such administrative actions, especially when followed by or enabling retrospective approvals, jeopardize long-standing environmental safeguards.
Ramesh was unequivocal in his prescription: "Retrospective approvals should never be permitted." This firm stance highlights a significant tension in India's development versus conservation debate, where post-facto clearances have often been a point of controversy, allowing projects to proceed without prior environmental scrutiny.
Broader Implications for Environmental Governance
This call to action is not just about a single reserve. It touches upon a systemic issue in India's environmental regulatory framework. The practice of regularizing projects or changes after the fact can lead to:
- Erosion of legal safeguards designed to protect ecologically sensitive zones.
- Loss of credibility for environmental impact assessment processes.
- Increased threats to wildlife and forest cover as boundaries are redrawn or projects are approved retrospectively.
By taking his concern directly to the apex court, Ramesh is seeking a judicial precedent that would firmly outlaw this practice, thereby strengthening the foundations of environmental governance in India. His intervention underscores the ongoing national conversation about balancing ecological preservation with infrastructure and development needs, a debate where the Supreme Court has often played a decisive role.
