Can an Office Memorandum Create a Perpetual Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Regime? Supreme Court Answers

Supreme Court: A batch of writ petitions, civil appeals and interlocutory applications challenged the validity of the Notification dated 14 March 2017 (2017 Notification) and the Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2021 (2021 Office Memorandum) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), which enabled consideration of environmental clearance applications in respect of projects that had commenced without obtaining the mandatory prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 (2006 EIA Notification) and Madras High Court’s decision in Fatima v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4514, insofar as it gave only prospective effect to the quashing of the 2021 Office Memorandum. The three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., Joymalya Bagchi* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.

1. Reaffirmed that prior environmental clearance under the 2006 EIA Notification was mandatory, and projects commenced without prior environmental clearance cannot ordinarily be regularised unless a valid statutory notification provides otherwise.

2. Held that the observations in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499 and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157 that ex post facto environmental clearance is impermissible, were context-specific and did not curtail the Central Government’s power to issue a narrowly tailored, one-time amnesty notification under Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Environment Protection Act).

3. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (Jan Vishwas Act), by decriminalising certain environmental contraventions, reinforces the Central Government’s authority to frame limited amnesty schemes for non-compliant projects where larger public interest so requires.

4. The Court clarified that Common Cause, Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 615; Pahwa Plastics (P) Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, (2023) 12 SCC 774 and D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, (2023) 20 SCC 469 must be understood in their respective factual contexts. It held that Electrosteel Steels Ltd. does not correctly interpret the mandatory nature of the prior environmental clearance requirement to the extent it suggests that ex post facto environmental clearance are generally permissible.

5. Upheld the 2017 Notification as a valid, narrowly tailored, and time-bound delegated legislation issued under Section 3, Environment Protection Act read with Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897 (General Clauses Act).

6. Declared the 2021 Office Memorandum invalid because it sought to create a perpetual post facto environmental clearance regime through an administrative instruction, thereby impermissibly overriding the 2006 EIA Notification. Consequently, it was quashed prospectively, and Pahwa Plastics (P) Ltd. and D. Swamy were overruled to the extent they upheld 2021 Office Memorandum’s validity.

7. All environmental clearances already granted under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum were protected, unless separately challenged on their merits.

8. Pending applications, including those rejected solely because of the interim stay or the judgment dated 16 May 2025 in Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1139 (Vanashakti-I), were directed to be dealt with in accordance with the Court’s directions.

9. No fresh applications under the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum should be entertained, and the Central Government was restrained from issuing future administrative orders granting ex post facto environmental clearances, except through a valid statutory notification under Section 3, Environment Protection Act.

10. Clarified that its decision does not restrict the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to grant appropriate relief, including ex post facto environmental clearance, in exceptional cases to do complete justice.

Also Read: Ex-Post Environmental Clearances: What the Supreme Court’s 2:1 Verdict Says — Majority v Dissent

Background

In the instant matter arose from challenges to 2 executive instruments issued by the MoEFCC, namely, 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum. Both instruments dealt with projects that had commenced activities without first obtaining environmental clearance as mandated under the 2006 EIA Notification. According to the petitioners, these measures effectively introduced a regime of ex post facto environmental clearances by permitting projects that had already violated the statutory requirement of prior clearance to seek subsequent regularisation. The challenge therefore centred upon whether such a mechanism was compatible with the Environment Protection Act, the 2006 EIA Notification, and settled principles of environmental jurisprudence.

Alongside these writ petitions, civil appeals arising out of the Madras High Court’s decision in Fatima, wherein the High Court had quashed the 2021 Office Memorandum together with another Office Memorandum dated 19 February 2021, was considered. However, the High Court had directed that its judgment would operate prospectively and had protected pending applications seeking environmental clearance. During the pendency of the proceedings, the State of Tamil Nadu also questioned the correctness of the Madras High Court’s judgment through a separate appeal, which had been directed to await the outcome of the present proceedings.

Initially, the matters were heard by a two-Judge Bench, which, by an interim order dated 2 January 2024, stayed the operation of the 2021 Office Memorandum while subsequently clarifying that projects seeking expansion, where valid prior environmental clearance already existed before 7 July 2021, would remain protected. Thereafter, in Vanashakti-I, the Court struck down both the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum, holding that ex post facto environmental clearance was alien to environmental jurisprudence and restrained the Central Government from issuing any future executive instrument providing such a mechanism.

Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) filed applications seeking review of Vanashakti-I. Since 1 member of the original Bench had demitted office, the Chief Justice constituted a three-Judge Bench to hear the review petitions in open court. By majority, the Review Bench recalled Vanashakti-I, restored the writ petitions to their original position and directed that they be heard afresh by a coordinate Bench. The recall of the earlier judgment formed the procedural foundation for the present adjudication.

The review judgment merely restored the matters for fresh consideration. It did not finally determine the validity of either the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum. Since the majority agreed only that the earlier judgment required reconsideration because certain precedents and portions of earlier decisions had not been adequately considered, the present Bench approached the controversy independently and without being constrained by the observations made in the review judgment on the substantive legality of the impugned instruments.

Also Read: Supreme Court clarifies stay on MoEFCC’s office memoranda permitting ex post facto environmental clearance

Issues for Determination

1. Whether the Environment Protection Act and the 2006 EIA Notification mandates prior environmental clearance and what legal consequences follow from its breach?

2. Whether the decisions in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. conflict with Electrosteel Steels Ltd., Pahwa Plastics (P) Ltd. and D. Swamy, or whether both lines of authority can be harmonised?

3. Whether the 2017 Notification constitutes a valid exercise of statutory power under the Environment Protection Act and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (Environment Protection Rules)?

4. Whether the 2021 Office Memorandum is ultra vires the Environment Protection Act, the Environment Protection Rules and the 2006 EIA Notification?

5. Whether the Madras High Court was justified in prospectively quashing the Office Memoranda dated 19 February 2021 and 2021 Office Memorandum?

6. What should be the legal status of environmental clearances already granted and applications that remained pending under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum?

Also Read: Supreme Court Permits Formaldehyde Units in Rajasthan and Haryana to Continue Operations Pending Environmental Clearance; Sets Aside NGT Closure Orders

Analysis

At the outset, the Court observed that environmental adjudication requires reconciling 2 competing constitutional aspirations, the fundamental right of present and future generations to live in a pollution-free environment and the developmental aspirations of a nation comprising nearly one-sixth of humanity. It emphasised that neither unrestricted development nor absolute environmental preservation could provide an acceptable solution. Instead, the Court stated that the controversy had to be examined through the lens of eco-centric proportionality, drawing inspiration from Gandhian philosophy that “the world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”.

Prior Environmental Clearance Regime and its Development

The Court traced the legislative origin of the Environment Protection Act to India’s commitments under the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, enacted to protect and improve environmental quality while preventing and controlling pollution. Section 3, Environment Protection Act empowers the Central Government to take all necessary measures for environmental protection, including restricting industrial activities in specified areas and prescribing safeguards. Section 5, Environment Protection Act authorises issuance of binding directions regulating, prohibiting or closing industries, while Rule 5(3)(d), Environment Protection Rules prescribes the procedure for exercising the powers under Section 3(2)(v) through prior publication and consideration of objections. It emphasised that every exercise of these statutory powers must further the object of the Act, namely, “the protection of the environment and the abatement of pollution”.

The Court further noted that Article 21 had gradually expanded to encompass the right to a clean and healthy environment through a series of landmark decisions. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, the principle of absolute liability for hazardous industries was recognised. State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 SCC 363, introduced the principle of inter-generational equity, while Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212 firmly embedded the polluter pays principle into the environmental law jurisprudence. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, elevated both the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as essential components of sustainable development. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, the public trust doctrine was affirmed, recognising the State as trustee rather than owner of natural resources. Collectively, these principles drew their constitutional foundation from Article 21, reinforced by Articles 48-A and 51-A(g).

Against this constitutional backdrop, the Court examined the evolution of the environmental clearance regime. The EIA Notification dated 27 January 1994 (1994 EIA Notification) first introduced the requirement that specified projects could not commence without environmental clearance. Although the word “prior” did not expressly appear, the scheme clearly contemplated clearance before commencement of the activity. The 2006 EIA Notification removed every possible ambiguity by repeatedly employing the expression “prior environmental clearance” and expressly prohibiting “any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land” before environmental clearance is granted. The Court held that the deliberate use of the word “prior” reflected legislative adoption of the precautionary principle by ensuring that environmental impacts are assessed before irreversible ecological changes occur.

Examining the statutory consequences of violating the prior environmental clearance requirement, the Court noted that under the original Section 15, Environment Protection Act, commencement of a project without prior clearance constituted a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment of up to 5 years, or with fine of up to ₹1 lakh, or with both. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 replaced criminal prosecution with a regime of graded civil penalties effective from 1 April 2024. Individual violators became liable to substantial monetary penalties, companies attracted higher minimum penalties together with daily continuing penalties, while government departments became liable through their responsible officers. Criminal prosecution was retained only for failure to pay the imposed penalty. The Court observed that breach of the prior environmental clearance regime continues to remain “an enforceable statutory contravention attracting escalating civil penalties”, even though Parliament has decriminalised the primary regulatory violation.

However, the Court identified a significant statutory gap. While the Act prescribes penalties for violating the prior environmental clearance requirement, “neither the Act nor the notification states what is to become of the offending project itself”, whether it must necessarily be demolished and the status quo restored, or whether it may continue subject to appropriate conditions. The Court recognised that this legislative silence lay at the centre of the present dispute.

Consequence of Breach and Scope for Regularisation

The Court asserted that the consequence of commencing a project without prior environmental clearance must be gathered from the scheme of the Environment Protection Act and the 2006 EIA Notification and not merely from the penal provision. Examining the statutory scheme, the Court reaffirmed that the requirement of obtaining prior environmental clearance is mandatory. The 2006 EIA Notification embodies the precautionary principle by ensuring environmental appraisal before any activity capable of affecting the environment begins. Describing the philosophy of the notification as one of “look before you leap”, the Court held that both its language and purpose leave no doubt that prior environmental clearance is a non-negotiable prerequisite for regulated projects.

The Court further clarified that the replacement of criminal prosecution with civil penalties through the Jan Vishwas Act did not dilute this mandatory requirement. The amendment merely altered the penal consequences of breach, it neither repealed nor modified the obligation to secure environmental clearance before commencement of the activity. Consequently, the mandatory character of the prior environmental clearance regime remained “founded on precautionary principle, is couched in imperative terms” notwithstanding the shift to a civil penalty framework.

Rejecting the respondents’ contention that prosecution or civil penalty constituted the exhaustive consequence of violation, the Court observed that the Act and the notification are silent regarding the benefit derived from the unlawful activity. Such silence, however, cannot be interpreted to allow a project proponent to retain “the usufructs of his wrongdoing”.

Accordingly, the Court held that breach of the prior environmental clearance requirement ordinarily attracts not only prosecution or civil penalty but also, by necessary implication, restoration of the status quo ante, including closure of operations, demolition where warranted, remediation of environmental damage and recovery of restoration costs. These consequences flow from the mandatory character of the statutory requirement and are not displaced merely because the statute separately prescribes penal sanctions.

The Court further examined whether the wide powers conferred upon the Central Government under Section 3, Environment Protection Act permit the creation of a limited mechanism for dealing with completed violations. Construing the expressions “control” and “abate” broadly, the Court held that these powers extend beyond preventing pollution and include addressing its consequences through environmental restoration.

Finally, the Court observed that the 2023 Amendment replacing prosecution with civil penalties reinforces this interpretation. While the architecture of the 2006 EIA Notification and the mandatory requirement of prior environmental clearance remain untouched, Parliament has created a more flexible regulatory framework in which, “in appropriate cases”, every violation need not inevitably culminate in demolition or closure. Instead, depending upon the statutory scheme and the public interest involved, the breach may be addressed through a combination of penalty, remediation, restitution and continued regulatory compliance.

Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance — Judicial Framework

In Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338 although the environmental and forest clearances suffered from procedural defects, the Court allowed the mining project to continue after fresh appraisal. It introduced the doctrine of proportionality into environmental review, holding that once the decision-making process is found to be fair and informed, a “margin of appreciation” should ordinarily be accorded to the expert authority. The project was permitted to continue subject to strict safeguards and financial deposits. Similarly, in Electrotherm (India) Ltd. v. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai, (2016) 9 SCC 300, the Court refused to close an operational steel plant despite defects in the environmental clearance process. Instead, it directed a post-decisional public hearing. The Court clarified that both Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. and Electrotherm (India) Ltd. involved projects where environmental clearance already existed, though procedurally defective, and did not establish a general rule permitting post facto environmental clearance.

In Common Cause, where mining had been undertaken without environmental clearance, the Court rejected retrospective validation holding that a prior environmental clearance is necessary, that “the grant of an ex post facto clearance would be detrimental to the environment”, and that such clearance is “alien to environmental jurisprudence”. Nevertheless, instead of directing permanent closure, it suspended mining operations, imposed compensation equal to the value of illegally extracted minerals, and permitted resumption after obtaining the requisite clearances. The Court held that these observations were made in the context of the unamended statutory regime, which contained no provision for post facto clearance.

In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., an executive circular permitting post facto environmental clearance under the 1994 regime was struck down, holding that an administrative instruction was incapable of amending delegated legislation. However, exercising Article 142, the Court declined to revoke the environmental clearances already granted or close the industries and instead imposed environmental compensation of ₹10 crores on each unit.

In Electrosteel Steels Ltd., the Court held that although compliance with environmental clearance requirements is non-negotiable, closure of a functioning steel plant was unwarranted. Considering its economic importance and employment generation, the Court permitted the project to continue while its application for environmental clearance was considered, subject to payment of environmental compensation.

Further, in both Pahwa Plastics and D. Swamy, where the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum were considered, the Court upheld the 2017 Notification and treated the 2021 Office Memorandum as having been issued “in pursuance of the statutory notification of 2017”.

The Court disagreed with Pahwa Plastics and D. Swamy and stated that the 2021 Office Memorandum was an independent administrative instruction, issued pursuant to the National Green Tribunal’s directions in Tanaji B. Gambhire v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 961 and not under the 2017 Notification. Since the statutory window under the 2017 Notification had already expired, it was held that Pahwa Plastics and D. Swamy did not lay down the correct law to the extent they upheld the validity of the 2021 Office Memorandum on that basis.

Reconciling the precedents, the Court held that Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. establish the governing principle that prior environmental clearance is mandatory, whereas Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd., Electrotherm (India) Ltd., Electrosteel Steels Ltd., Pahwa Plastics and D. Swamy deal with the consequences of breach in specific factual situations. The observation in Electrosteel Steels Ltd. that the Environment Protection Act accommodates ex post facto environmental clearance was held to overlook the mandatory character of the 2006 EIA Notification. Similarly, Pahwa Plastics and D. Swamy were not good law to the extent they upheld the validity of the 2021 Office Memorandum by treating it as an extension of the 2017 Notification.

2017 Notification — Validity

The Court upheld the validity of the 2017 Notification, holding that it was delegated legislation validly issued under Section 3(1) and (2)(v), Environment Protection Act read with Rule 5(3)(d) of the Rules. Unlike the executive circular struck down in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Notification followed the statutory procedure of prior publication, consideration of objections and parliamentary oversight. As the Court observed, “a dialogue with stakeholders thus preceded its issuance and parliamentary oversight followed it”.

The Court held that the Notification carved out a limited exception to the mandatory prior environmental clearance regime under the 2006 EIA Notification. The declaration in Common Cause that ex post facto environmental clearance is “completely alien to environmental jurisprudence” was to apply to the unamended regulatory regime and did not restrict the Central Government’s power to amend the Notification through valid delegated legislation under Section 21, General Clauses Act.

Describing the Notification as a time-bound amnesty measure, the Court observed that it was intended to bring existing violators back within the environmental regulatory framework through appraisal, remediation and environmental compensation rather than leaving them unregulated. Since it applied only to projects already operating without prior environmental clearance as on 14 March 2017, it created a valid classification and did not extend to future violations.

Applying the tests of reasonable classification and proportionality, the Court held that the 2017 Notification pursued the legitimate object of environmental protection while balancing competing public interests. It did not grant automatic regularisation but subjected defaulting projects to stringent appraisal and remedial measures. Therefore, the Court concluded that the 2017 Notification is a “valid narrowly tailored and time-bound delegated legislation” traceable to Section 3, Environment Protection Act read with Section 21, General Clauses Act, and accordingly upheld its validity.

2021 Office Memorandum — Validity of

The Court noted that 2021 Office Memorandum allowed eligible projects to obtain environmental clearance after assessment of environmental damage, implementation of remedial measures and payment of prescribed compensation, but imposed no cut-off date or limit on the class of eligible projects.

The Court held that the 2021 Office Memorandum, being an executive instruction, could not amend or dilute the statutory regime under the Environment Protection Act and the 2006 EIA Notification. While executive instructions may supplement statutory provisions where they are silent, they cannot override or operate inconsistently with delegated legislation. The Court also noted that, on the same principle, the office memorandum permitting post facto Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance had rightly been quashed in Fatima.

Comparing the 2 regimes, the Court found that the 2006 EIA Notification mandates environmental appraisal before any irreversible activity begins, whereas the 2021 Office Memorandum permits appraisal only after the project has been constructed or commenced. At that stage, meaningful screening, scoping, consideration of alternatives and public consultation become impossible. It observed that the memorandum altered the nature and timing of environmental assessment and therefore “supplants the 2006 EIA Notification and does not merely supplement it”.

The Court further held that, unlike the time-bound 2017 Notification, the 2021 Office Memorandum created an open-ended and permanent route for regularisation. It failed the test of proportionality by allowing project proponents to commence operations first and seek approval later on payment of predetermined compensation. Since an amnesty is an exception and not a right, such a departure could only be authorised by law and justified by overriding public interest, conditions which the memorandum failed to satisfy.

Accordingly, the Court declared the 2021 Office Memorandum ultra vires the Environment Protection Act and the 2006 EIA Notification, but quashed it prospectively to protect existing environmental clearances and pending applications processed under the prevailing regulatory framework.

Decision

Since the 2021 Office Memorandum was quashed prospectively, the Court exercised its powers to do complete justice by protecting existing rights and prescribing the future course for environmental clearance applications under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum:

1. Environmental clearances already granted under the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum should continue to remain valid, unless they are separately challenged on their individual merits.

2. All pending applications filed under the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum should be processed to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

3. Applications that were dismissed, returned, or delisted solely because of the interim stay dated 2 January 2024 or the judgment in Vanashakti-I may be reconsidered in light of the present judgment and the prospective quashing of the 2021 Office Memorandum.

4. No fresh applications seeking ex post facto environmental clearance under the 2017 Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum should be entertained.

5. The Central Government was restrained from issuing any future administrative orders permitting grant of environmental clearance for projects commenced in violation of the prior environmental clearance regime under the 2006 EIA Notification.

6. This decision does not restrict the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to grant appropriate relief, including ex post facto environmental clearance, in exceptional cases to do complete justice.

Also Read: The Supreme Court on the Ex Post Facto Environment Impact Assessment?

[Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1404, decided on 29-7-2026]

*Judgment Authored by Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Eisha Krishn, Adv. Ms. Mansi Bachani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Anubhav Anand, Adv. Mr. Surya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Fizza Zaidi, Adv. Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Adv. Ms. Satvika Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. P.D.V. Srikar, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv. Ms. Yatika Gupta, Adv. Ms. Priyanshi Goel, Adv. Mr. Bhoumik Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Tilak Vij, Adv. Ms. Aishani Narayan, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Thandra Sai Yeshwant Goud, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Eresh Roshan Swain, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv. Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Cheema, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Tushar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. A.R. Takkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. Shriya Takkar, Adv. Mr. Manan Takkar, Adv. Ms. Shriya Takkar, Adv. Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Ms. Aastha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Mr. Harish Vasudevan, Adv. Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv. Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Ms. Manavi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Pattnaik, Adv. Ms. Ameesha Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Naman Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Dwevanshi, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shukla Samit Dilip, Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Adv. For M/s Trilegal Advocates On Record, AOR Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Ishani Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Isha Baloni, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Pathak, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv. Ms. Shrijeta Pratik, Adv. Ms. Pragya Prachi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Sejwar, Adv. Mr. Nirav R. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. Rajnikant Reddy, A.A.G. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, AOR Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Sahil Monga, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singh, AOR Ms. Shivangi Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Pramothesh Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sonali Kumari, Adv. Ms. Ishita Singh Tomar, Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Mr. Polavarapu Sai Charan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde , AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Ms. Tirtha Pawar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, AOR Mr. Krishna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Yamika Khanna, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ketan Joshi, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, AOR Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kshitiz S R, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Manoneet Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Mangalam, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Eisha Krishn, Adv. Ms. Mansi Bachani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Anubhav Anand, Adv. Mr. Surya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Fizza Zaidi, Adv. Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Adv. Ms. Satvika Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv. Ms. Harshita Jain, Adv. Mr. Jatin Lalwani, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Ms. Bhagyashree Raj, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Nithin Chowdary P., Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shukla Samit Dilip, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Adv. M/s Trilegal Advocates On Record, AOR Mr. R. Verdrajan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Sushmita Pandey, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Arun Hirulkar, Adv. Ms. Kunika Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Naman Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ameesha Malhotra, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Naman Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ameesha Malhotra, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Satya Kam Sharma, AOR Mr. Karthik S.D., AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mrs. Rucha Praveen Mandlik, Adv. For M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Mr. Polavarapu Sai Charan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Aditya Soni, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Mr. Yashovardhan Singh, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Mr. L Badri Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Adv. Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neha Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Nitum Jain, Adv. Ms. Medha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Swastik Mishra, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, AOR Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam, Adv. Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv. Mr. Vedant Choudhary, Adv. For M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv. Ms. Anchal Kanthed, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Hirday Virdi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Vipul Ganda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Ishan Upadhaya, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Panwar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Chandankhede, Adv. Mr. Rushabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Kaustabh Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, AOR