Hyderabad: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment striking down post-facto environmental clearances, environmentalists warn that major irrigation and mining projects in Telangana, including the multi-crore Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme, could come under renewed legal and regulatory scrutiny.On May 16, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan struck down the 2017 and 2021 notifications issued by the Centre that allowed retrospective environmental approvals. The court also barred the Centre from issuing any future circulars or memoranda permitting such clearances.Delivering the verdict, the court observed that projects commenced without prior environmental clearance (EC) had committed “gross illegalities” and could not be retrospectively regularised.“This judgment should impact nearly all irrigation projects, including Kaleshwaram, as well as most mining and some industrial activities in Telangana,” said environmental economist Professor D Narasimha Reddy, welcoming the ruling as a crucial step towards restoring environmental due process.Prof Reddy emphasised that the purpose of the original EC framework was to ensure public consultation and rigorous environmental assessment prior to project approval. “By allowing post-facto clearances, the Centre undermined the very principles of environmental governance and enabled reckless and inequitable development,” he said.Vanashakti petitionThe Supreme Court ruling came in response to a petition filed by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which challenged the legality of the Centre’s 2021 and 2022 memoranda that permitted post-facto environmental clearances — in direct violation of the 2006 environmental impact assessment notification.The petitioners argued that the term “prior environmental clearance” was used 34 times in the original notification, highlighting its non-negotiable and mandatory nature.The court concurred, stating that both state and private entities that initiated projects without ECs were fully aware of their legal obligations and chose to proceed regardless. “There are no equities in favour of those who committed gross illegalities,” Justice Oka wrote in the operative portion of the order.