New Delhi, Nov. 19 -- Following the Supreme Court's decision - by a 2-1 majority - to recall its May 16 judgment barring ex-post-facto environmental clearances (EC), legal and environmental experts said the ruling reopens a contentious debate around whether violations can be regularised after damage has already occurred. While the majority cited judicial discipline and binding precedent to justify the recall, environmentalists warned that the underlying issue remains unresolved and fraught with environmental risks. Debadityo Sinha, lead, climate and ecosystems at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, clarified that the May ruling has not been undone on merits but merely recalled for a larger bench to examine. Sinha said an ex-post facto EC fundamentally weakens the framework meant to ensure a project is evaluated before work begins. "Securing an EC is designed as a safeguard to decide if a project should be allowed at a particular place at all, taking into account the ecology, its biodiversity, and the risks of permanent environmental harm. It goes far beyond pollution control; thus. EC exists to answer the fundamental question: Is the project feasible for the particular site?," Sinha said, stating even though the order has been recalled on technical grounds - that it should be considered by a larger bench - it was crucial this interim period is not misused to push through destructive projects. "In this context, the Vanshakti judgment played an important corrective role..It pushed back against the growing pattern of fait accompli, where projects start work first and seek clearances later," he said, stating India cannot afford to lose more ecosystems and livelihoods because of administrative shortcuts or regulatory capture. The Supreme Court's recall order restores, for now, the 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum that permit post-facto approvals in certain situations. But several experts said these mechanisms remain environmentally regressive regardless of procedural legality....