CREDAI v. Vanashakti & Anr. 

Review Petition (C) Diary No. 41929/2025

CJI B.R. Gavai , Ujjal Bhuyan and K. Vinod Chandran,JJ

Overview

The judgement deals with a review petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India seeking a recall of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16 May 2025 in Vanashakti v. Union of India. The original judgment, referred to as the JUR (Judgment Under Review) for brevity, had laid down elaborate directions relating to environmental compliance, regularisation of past illegalities and scope of judicial power in environmental regulation.

Although numerous review petitions and IAs for clarification/modification filed by the Union of India and private parties are still pending, the present review petition was treated as the lead petition. The Court heard counsel from all sides to appreciate the wider implications of the challenge.

This review petition’s central theme relates to judicial discipline, the extent of judicial review in environmental governance, and whether the earlier judgment transgressed settled legal principles or misapplied precedent.

Facts

CREDAI, which represents real estate developers, filed an appeal against the judgment of the principal bench in Vanashakti where detailed directions regarding building permissions, environmental clearances, project approvals, and automatic nullification of past sanctions were issued. The original judgment was predominantly based on environmental jurisprudence evolved through several landmark judgments such as Common Cause, Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Electrosteel Steels, Pahwa Plastics, among others.

CREDAI’s contention was that this JUR imposed retrospective obligations, impeded the statutory processes under the Environment (Protection) Act, and thus caused uncertainty for ongoing and completed real-estate projects.

It was argued before the review petition that the Court had misinterpreted prior precedents, overextended judicial power, and unsettled established law warranting recall.

Legal Issues

• Whether the JUR warranted recall under the Supreme Court’s narrow review jurisdiction, particularly whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record or a misreading of binding precedent.
• Whether the judgment by the Court in the original case violated principles of judicial discipline and propriety by departing from or expanding earlier environmental judgments.
• Whether the directions in the JUR amounted to judicial legislation or encroachment into the executive domain relating to environmental regulation and monitoring.
• Whether the landmark decisions like Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Common Cause, D. Swamy, and Pahwa Plastics were rightly applied in the JUR.
• Whether the directions had unintended consequences, including: affecting vested rights, invalidating prior approvals, interfering with statutory frameworks (EIA notifications, CRZ rules, municipal laws).

Decision

The Supreme Court, while reviewing its earlier judgment that had set aside the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum allowing ex post facto ECs, issued two divergent opinions. The concurring opinion was in support of granting review on the basis that the earlier judgment had missed binding precedents that allowed limited and conditional relaxation in exceptional situations. The Court explained that relaxation of regulation is not ipso facto impermissible, environmental jurisprudence requires balanced and non-regressive application, and parties acting under existing relaxations should not suffer disproportionate hardship. Hence, review was necessary and just.