New Delhi: As the languid, colonial city of Bombay has transformed into the heaving, construction-filled metropolis of modern Mumbai, the latest symbol of that transformation has been the “redevelopment” of entire low-income or middle-class neighbourhoods into gated communities of soaring tower blocks.
One such redevelopment is a project by a company called Golden Realty to erase and rebuild the ramshackle, former red-light district of Kamathipura, one of many in the area, approved in 2023 by the state government as part of its vision for urban renewal.
Golden Residency, a residential redevelopment undertaken by Golden Realty, a Mumbai-based firm. The project began in 2016 as a three-wing complex. By the time the company approached regulators, however, two wings—each rising more than 30 storeys—had already been constructed.
The problem was that construction began without an environmental clearance (EC).
Under India’s 2006 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, any real estate project with a built-up area exceeding 20,000 sq m must obtain an EC before construction begins.
This requirement is meant to ensure prior scrutiny of impacts on water, waste, sewage, traffic and surrounding neighbourhoods. Golden Realty crossed this legal threshold without seeking clearance, placing its project squarely in violation of the law.
Hope came in 2021 when the union ministry of environment, forests and climate change announced an amnesty, formally termed a “standard operating procedure ” or SOP. It allowed companies that had commenced projects without prior environmental clearance to subsequently apply for approval.
Real estate developers were not alone.
Public sector undertakings and private mining companies also accounted for a substantial share of violators, many of whom had applied for environment clearances under the amnesty.
But in January 2024, the Supreme Court imposed an interim stay on the amnesty, acting on a public interest litigation filed by the environmental group Vanashakti.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court finally struck down the amnesty, revealing how Golden Realty and others—anywhere from 60 to 300 projects by industry estimates—freely violated the law.
“Apart from the fact that the very concept of grant of ex post facto EC is illegal, it is not possible to understand why the central government made efforts to protect those who committed illegality by not obtaining prior EC,” Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan wrote in the May judgment.
The violators, they noted, were “companies, real estate developers, public sector undertakings, mining industries” who had “knowingly committed illegality”.
The Reversal
Ever since the judgment, review petitions filed by the largest real estate lobby group, Confederation of Real Estate Developers Associations of India (CREDAI), and several public and private companies across sectors, have repeatedly sought the reinstatement of the amnesty.
Real estate companies were among the most persistent in seeking revival of the amnesty or alternative legal protection after the Supreme Court imposed an interim stay on it in early 2024.
Apart from Golden Realty, several firms pursuing standalone residential projects also approached the Supreme Court. Some asked that their projects be exempted from adverse consequences—fines and demolition—despite violating the law.
In November 2025, then Chief Justice of India B R Gavai appeared to agree, delivering an order that experts said would affect environmental regulation in the real estate sector.
Justice Gavai ordered that the judgment delivered seven months earlier by Justice Oka and Bhuyan be recalled and that the issues decided in both cases be reconsidered by his successor.
In effect, the order required the next Chief Justice to rehear petitions filed by the real estate lobby group, Confederation of Real Estate Developers Associations of India (CREDAI), and several public and private entities.
Chief Justice Gavai’s November order, even if temporary, shielded real estate projects worth thousands of crores—and homes linked to them—from the immediate risk of demolition, despite acknowledged and widespread violations of environmental law, said experts.
In his judgment, Justice Gavai focused largely on the consequences of demolishing public infrastructure constructed in violation of the EIA notification. These included a hospital and an airport.
If the May 2025 ruling was not recalled, Justice Gavai wrote, “it will have serious consequences in terms of demolition of projects which are either completed or about to be completed… constructed out of the public exchequer.”
The petitioner in the case, Stalin D, director of environmental non-profit Vanashakti, said in an interview with Article 14 that the judgment ensured that the companies which violated the EIA notification, "got exactly what they wished for”.
“They wanted immunity and a license to plunder without any fear or accountability,” said Stalin.
‘Systemic Violations’
The judgment did not attempt to quantify the scale of private-sector investments exposed by illegal construction, particularly in real estate. Justice B.R. Gavai noted only that demolition could have “manifold” consequences for projects undertaken by private entities.
Previously undisclosed official records reviewed by this reporter, along with interviews with real estate industry representatives and legal experts, suggest the exposure runs into several thousand crore rupees, stemming from widespread violations.
In submissions to the Supreme Court in late 2025, CREDAI said that “hundreds of applications” from real estate and allied sectors were pending environmental clearance under the amnesty when it was struck down.
Advocate Samit Shukla, who assisted CREDAI, estimated that around 300 real- estate projects faced demolition at the time, with investments at risk of at least Rs 1,000 crore, a figure he said was “almost certainly higher”.
A senior office bearer of a real estate industry body, speaking on condition of anonymity because the matter is sub judice, said the number of affected projects was unclear, but, assuming an average project value of Rs 200 crore, the total investment exposed could be as high as Rs 12,000 crore.
Environmental law experts said the episode underscores systemic non-compliance with environmental law. Debadityo Sinha of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy said the May 2025 judgment had acknowledged widespread violations, particularly in real estate and mining.
“This highlights the systemic nature of violations in these industries, where regulatory processes are frequently bypassed or misused to facilitate unauthorised development and extractive activities, often with state support,” said Sinha.
Industry representatives also pointed to the impact on homebuyers. “This has consequences for homebuyers, said Shukla. “It is difficult to quantify, but the scale is massive.”
The Builder’s Argument
In its intervention application filed in the Supreme Court in February 2025, Golden Realty attributed its violations to changes in government policy rather than deliberate non-compliance. It pointed to two decisions taken by the Maharashtra government while the project was underway.
The first concerned floor space index (FSI), which determines how much can be built on a given plot. In July 2021, the state increased “incentive FSI” from 70% to 100% and simultaneously raised base FSI levels. According to Golden Realty, these changes pushed the project’s built-up area beyond 20,000 sq m. Earlier, it said, the project fell below the threshold and did not require an EC.
This argument glosses over a crucial point: the construction could not have crossed the statutory limit without an EC.
Instead, Golden Realty continued building.
The company cited a second policy shift to explain why it did not seek clearance even after crossing the threshold. In December 2021, the Maharashtra government announced a “cluster development policy” for Kamathipura, after which the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) stopped issuing approvals for redevelopment projects in the area.
Such approval was a prerequisite for applying for an EC. Despite announcing the policy in 2021, Golden Realty claimed, the state government approved the Kamathipura cluster under the policy only in June 2024—years after construction had begun.
The state government eventually cleared the Kamathipura cluster only in June 2024—years after construction had begun.
On this basis, Golden Realty characterised its breach as “only a technical violation” caused by shifting policies rather than a “purposefully done violation”. It also framed the project as a social good.
The firm told the court that it had vacated around 200 tenants, including sex workers operating from brothels across the site, calling it a “gargantuan task”. These tenants, it said, were expecting improved housing and amenities once redevelopment was completed. Granting an EC now, Golden Realty argued, would therefore be “in the interest of the tenants”.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled specifically on Golden Realty’s case. By February 2025, the firm told the court it had spent Rs 117.32 crore on the project, which still lacks environmental clearance. If the post facto clearance amnesty is revived, the project stands to benefit.
Golden Realty’s explanation—policy changes, administrative delays and humanitarian considerations—mirrors arguments made by several other developers whose projects violated the EIA notification but later sought protection under amnesty schemes.
The Same Arguments
Golden Realty’s explanation—policy changes, administrative delays and humanitarian considerations—mirrors arguments made by several other developers whose projects violated the law but later sought protection under amnesty schemes.
Consider Serene Developers, which built a large residential project in Pune district called Air Castles Cooperative Housing Society Limited: 13 buildings, each 8 floors high, with a built-up area exceeding 37,000 sq m.
Built at a cost of over Rs 99 crore, it too lacks an EC.
In an application filed before the Supreme Court in August 2025, Serene Developers said it applied for environmental clearance in 2010, before starting construction. In 2016, Pune Mirror, a local newspaper, reported that the EC website did not list Air Castles, making the project illegal.
When authorities kept the application pending for more than 17 months, the firm began construction without clearance. As with Golden Realty, it initially kept construction below 20,000 sq m before expanding the project.
Because the overall plan involved 17 buildings, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board filed a criminal complaint against Serene Developers for violating the law and imposed a fine of Rs 90,000.
That complaint, in turn, became a reason for regulators to withhold clearance for years. Although the state expert appraisal committee recommended an EC in late 2023, it was not granted, apparently due to the legal uncertainty surrounding the amnesty framework.
Claims Of Ignorance
Other developers claimed ignorance of the law itself.
Kent Construction Private Limited, based in Kochi, constructed a multi-storey residential project—Kent Mahal—in Ernakulam district over more than 60,000 sq m without environmental clearance.
In a February 2024 application to the Supreme Court, Kent Construction said it began construction after obtaining “all requisite permissions” and only discovered the need for an EC when it applied to the Pollution Control Board for consent to establish a sewage treatment plant.
Regulators suspended the project and began legal proceedings in 2013. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority in Kerala, which is the nodal authority for screening and recommending projects that apply for ECs, directed the district collector to act against the project. The Kerala High Court ordered the pollution control board to do the same.
Since then, the company sought relief under a 2017 central government amnesty for violators, but could not benefit because the state failed to impose the penalty required under the scheme. A fresh application filed in 2022 was processed under the 2021 amnesty, but before any clearance could be granted, the Supreme Court paused the scheme in early 2024.
Since then, regulatory authorities have not approved any pending or fresh applications for post facto environmental clearances under amnesty provisions—leaving many projects in legal limbo.
A Regulatory Gap
Supporters of the amnesty say the SoP penalises violations while allowing projects to be brought into compliance. Advocate Shukla, who assisted CREDAI, said the SoP was meant to address a regulatory gap.
It applied, he said, to projects that had prior clearances but later deviated due to changes in planning or design, and imposed “punitive and harsh” penalties that acted as deterrents.
Environmental policy experts strongly disagreed.
Sinha of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy said the SoP weakened environmental enforcement by incentivising violations.
“Why would project proponents follow impact assessments or public consultations,” he asked, “when they can simply pay a nominal penalty—sometimes as low as 1% of project cost—and regularise the violation?”
The approach, said Sinha, normalises “pollute and pay” and erodes an already fragile regulatory framework.
The Rule Of Law
In January 2026, the ministry of environment clarified its reading of the November 2025 Supreme Court order through a three-page office memorandum.
The ministry said that “all violation cases pending as per the provisions” of its July 7, 2021 office memorandum—as of January 2, 2024, when the Supreme Court stayed the amnesty in Vanashakti vs Union of India—could now be processed. However, it added that “the final order granting approval shall not be issued till further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.
In effect, the ministry resumed appraisal of proposals for environment clearances filed by companies that had violated the EIA notification under the SoP. It had halted this process after the interim stay imposed on January 2, 2024.
The real estate sector responded cautiously. The senior office bearer of the real estate industry body quoted earlier, said the memo allowed appraisal to resume, but did not resolve the core uncertainty.
“It gives some relief in terms of saving three to five months of process time,” he said. “However, without EC, the projects will hit a dead end again.” He added that the central government should enact a permanent law to address violation cases and avoid recurring litigation.
Advocate Shukla, who assisted CREDAI, said the memorandum functioned as guidance for state-level regulatory authorities. “It kick-starts the appraisal process, but the grant of EC remains suspended,” he said. Final resolution, he added, would depend on consequential orders passed by the Supreme Court.
Vanshdeep Dalmia, counsel for Vanashakti, said the memo restored the position as it stood before the May 2025 judgment: proposals could be examined, but no final clearances could be issued.
Dalmia said the November 2025 order effectively remanded the matter to the Chief Justice’s court, reviving the original writ petition, which could be heard by a larger bench.
On 16 February 2026, a fresh three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Surya Kant began hearing the case again. When this story was published, no judgment had been delivered.
(Akshay Deshmane is an independent investigative journalist based in New Delhi.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.