By Admin 
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 18, 2025) withdrew an old order by a three-judge bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai (CJI BR Gavai), due to which a judge got angry. The court withdrew its May 16 verdict in the Vanshakti case, in which it had ordered the demolition of all constructions in cases where environmental clearance was taken after construction. The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan gave this decision with a majority (2:1). Justice Bhuiyan did not agree on this and expressed strong disagreement with the majority decision.
CJI Gavai wrote the judgment in 84 pages, while Justice Bhuyan expressed his dissent in 97 pages. With this decision of the court, the threat of demolition of many important public infrastructure projects across the country including AIIMS in Odisha has been averted.
The decision, taken by a majority (2:1) bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod K Chandran, said that if the May 16 order is not withdrawn, it will result in the demolition of various buildings, projects constructed with public money worth about Rs 20,000 crore, PTI reported. The decision of May 16 was given by Justice Abhay S. It was given by the bench of Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan.
The decision cited the potentially devastating impact on projects of national importance, including a 962-bed hospital at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Odisha and a greenfield airport. During the hearing, the Center submitted a list of projects which are stalled and whose existence is in danger.
Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan has termed the CJI’s recall judgment as ignoring the basic principles of environmental jurisprudence and a step towards retrogression. In its order dated May 16, the bench of Justice Bhuiyan and Justice Oka had declared post-facto environmental clearance (approval given later) illegal and ordered the demolition of such constructions. Also, the government was stopped from giving such approval.
A review petition was filed in the court challenging the order of May 16, on which the bench of CJI Gavai withdrew the order of May 16. Justice Bhuiyan has written a 97-page dissenting judgment, in which he has expressed strong disagreement with the decision of CJI Gavai. He wrote, ‘The precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. There is only the principle of compensation for polluters. The precautionary principle cannot be ignored through polluters pay. The review judgment is a step backward in the direction of environmental protection. Justice Bhuiyan called the majority decision an innocent expression of opinion which ignores the basic principles of environmental jurisprudence.
The third judge of the bench, Justice K Vinod Chandran, also wrote his judgment separately and said that dissent is part of the democratic judicial process, but it should be done rising above one’s personal conviction of right and wrong. Criticizing the order of May 16, he said that it ignored the powers and legal principles granted under the Environmental Protection Act. He described the review as appropriate, mandatory and prompt.