The test will depend on how narrowly the government frames any future amnesty scheme and whether it meets the Supreme Court’s benchmark of “public interest”. The court held that the OM had created a continuing or “perpetual” regime for condoning violations. It did not invalidate the March 2017 notification, which provided a limited, one-time six-month amnesty window. The court held that regulation and remediation could, in some cases, better serve environmental protection than immediate closure. The court also held that the one-time amnesty introduced in 2017 had exhausted itself and could not justify future regularisation.