Supreme Court Bench Threatens Exemplary Costs Against Congress MP Jairam Ramesh
In a significant courtroom confrontation, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday strongly rebuked Congress MP and former environment minister Jairam Ramesh, threatening to impose exemplary costs over what it termed a "design" to challenge a judicial order. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed sharp disapproval during proceedings on a petition filed by Ramesh.
Petition Challenges Government Memorandum on Environment Clearances
The controversy centers on a petition filed by Jairam Ramesh challenging a government office memorandum issued last month. This memorandum was designed to implement the Supreme Court's November 18 judgment, which had regularised retrospective environment clearances for public projects. The November 18 decision, made by a three-judge bench with a two-to-one majority, recalled an earlier judgment from May 16, 2025.
That earlier judgment had directed the demolition of projects worth approximately Rs 20,000 crore. These projects were deemed illegal because they had received ex-post facto environment clearances, even though penalties had been paid. The November ruling effectively overturned this demolition order, allowing the projects to proceed with regularised clearances.
Court Questions Maintainability and Alleges Media Publicity Motive
When Ramesh's counsel, Muhammad Ali Khan, began arguments against the January office memorandum permitting retrospective clearances, the bench immediately raised concerns. "Is this writ petition maintainable? What are you challenging?" the judges inquired pointedly. The court did not mince words, stating, "We know the design behind this. Through a writ petition, you want to seek review of the judgment. Be ready for exemplary cost. This is all for media publicity."
The bench elaborated that the office memorandum merely implements the November 18 judgment, so challenging it effectively means challenging the judgment itself. "Can you challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court through a writ petition?" the court questioned. It emphasized that if there is a grievance against the judgment, the proper remedy is to file a review petition, not a writ petition.
Withdrawal Chosen Over Facing Exemplary Costs
Faced with the stark choice between withdrawing the petition or facing substantial exemplary costs, counsel Muhammad Ali Khan opted for withdrawal. This retreat marked a clear victory for the bench's firm stance against what it perceived as an improper legal maneuver. The incident underscores the judiciary's intolerance for attempts to circumvent standard review processes and its readiness to impose penalties for such actions.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between political figures and judicial authorities over environmental governance and legal procedures. It also raises questions about the appropriate channels for challenging court decisions, reinforcing the Supreme Court's authority in interpreting and enforcing its own rulings.
