National Green Tribunal

Introduction
The judicial administration system of India has been overwhelmed by a huge backlog of cases.
Particularly, cases involving technical issues like effective protection of environment pollution
have to be dealt with in an expeditious manner which is not possible in such a scenario of
backlogs. This very problem entailed an urgent need of an alternative forum for deciding matters
related to environment without much delay. Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union
of India (1997) 2 SCC 411, for the first time, deliberated upon the issue and pointed out that
“cases involving issues of environmental pollution, ecological destruction and its conflict over
natural resources involved assessment and evolution of scientific data and, therefore, according
to the court, there was an urgent need of involvement of experts in the administration of justice.”
The Court further suggested that there is a need for ‘neutral scientific expertise’ and so,
environment courts should be set up on a regional basis with one professional judge and two
experts.

This view was reiterated in the cases of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India
(1996) 5 SCC 647; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212;
and in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, whereby the need for an
Environmental Court having civil and criminal jurisdiction for the purpose of speedy justice was
emphasized upon. The intricate environmental issues require a more stern attention and trained
manpower for apt appreciation. In certain cases, the method for scrutinizing of such issues
require a lot of time. These time constraints and distinctiveness of the nature of disputes
compelled setting up of “Green Benches” in several High Courts of India.

Later, on the request of the Court, Law Commission of India examined the question in detail and
in its 186th Report (2003), recommended the setting up of environmental courts having original
and appellate jurisdiction related to environmental laws. It further noted that the National
Environment Appellate Authority (1997) and National Environmental Tribunal (1995) were non-
functional statutory bodies. Apart from the aforementioned judgments, the study was guided by
the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Model of Environmental Court in New
Zealand, idea of a ‘multi-faceted’ Environmental Court with technical and judicial inputs
formulated by Lord Woolf in England and the Environmental Courts in Australia and other
nations.

In 1989, Maneka Gandhi, the then Union Minister of Environment, had advocated the idea of
environment courts. However, it was only on 31 July 2009 that the National Green Tribunal Bill,
2009 was presented in the Lok Sabha. The Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests for examination and reports.
After holding a series of meetings with the concerned officials, the Committee presented 203rd
report on National Green Tribunal Bill on 16th November 2009. The Parliament passed the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] which came into effect
on 18th October 2010. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta, former judge of the Supreme Court,
took charge as the chairman of the National Green Tribunal.

Object and purpose of the Act

The Act provides for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as
‘NGT’ or ‘the tribunal’]. The objective behind establishment of NGT is the expeditious and
efficient disposal of cases involving issues of environmental protection, conservation of natural
resources like forests, and also the enforcement of related rights of the individuals. The object
entails relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for other related
matters.

As follows, NGT is a specialized body, with the necessary proficiency to attend and dispose of
environmental disputes involving multi-faceted issues. Furthermore, its specificity in
environmental issues caters speedy justice, reducing the burden of backlogs. Moreover, the
Tribunal is sanctioned to endeavor for disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months
of filing of the same (Section 14).

The Act further endeavors to implement the judicial pronouncements that “the right to healthy
environment is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” as held in
case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1992 SC 4200.

Moreover, the Act is an endeavor of the Parliament under Article 253 read with Entry 14 of the
Union List under Schedule VII of the Constitution to fulfill the obligation of India towards
Stockholm Declaration, 1972 in which India participated, calling upon the States to take
appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of the human environment and Rio
Declaration, 1992 in which India participated, calling upon the States to provide effective access
to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy and to develop national
laws regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental
damage.

Features of the Tribunal

The NGT Act has certain salient features pertaining to its specificity in environmental issues and
objective deemed to be the judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228
for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be.

 India became the third country in the world, after Australia and New Zealand, to adopt
Green Court legislation and establish special Environment Courts.
 The Act has led to establishment of the set-up at five places of sittings, for making itself
more accessible. New Delhi is the Principal Place of Sitting of the Tribunal and Pune,
 Bhopal, Chennai and Kolkata are the other four places of sitting of the Tribunal.
[Annexure 1]
 All proceedings before the Tribunal shall be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195
and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 The Tribunal has all the power given to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in respect of summoning, enforcing attendance, receiving evidence on affidavits,
examining on oath, and granting ex parte and interim orders and injunctions and others
(Section 19).
 The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is free to devise its own procedure and rules as
per its convenience. However, the tribunal is bound by the principles of natural justice
(Section 19).
 The Tribunal is enjoined to follow the internationally recognized and nationally applied
environmental principles of ‘Sustainable Development’, ‘Precautionary Principle’ and
‘Polluter Pays Principle’ while issuing any order, decision or award (Section 20).
 No fault Liability principle has been incorporated under the act and hence is enforceable
by tribunal (Section 17)

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal [Chapter III]

The Act confers upon the NGT, the jurisdiction to hear initial complaints as well as appeals from
decisions of authorities under various environmental laws. Thus, the Tribunal has been vested
with wide jurisdiction, and it can hear matters in the form of original, appellate, review and
miscellaneous petitions as enshrined under Chapter III of the Act.

Under Section 14, the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction in respect of all civil cases where a
substantial question relating to environment is involved and such question arises out of the
implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the Act. Here, civil cases encompass
all legal proceedings except criminal cases, which are governed by the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. Furthermore, “substantial question of law” has been explained under
Section 2(m) to include an instance where there is a direct violation of a specific environmental
obligation by a person whereby the community at large is affected or likely to be affected by
environmental consequences, or the gravity of damage to the environment or property is
substantial, or the damage to public health is broadly measurable.

The legislations included in Schedule I are:

1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977
3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
 6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

Section 14 of the Act provides a time-limit of six months within which the applications for
adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal. It also empowers
the Tribunal to allow such applications to be filled within a further period not exceeding sixty
days, if it is satisfied that the application was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the
application within the said period.

Further, Section 16 of the Act provides the appellate power to the Tribunal against the order of
various judicial/quasi-judicial forums mentioned in the section. Moreover, according to the Act,
from the date of establishment of the Tribunal, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain
any case/appeal in respect of any matter, which the Tribunal is empowered to determine under its
appellate jurisdiction.

Composition of the Tribunal [Section 4]

The Tribunal shall consist of a full time chairperson. Along with him, there are ten to twenty full
time judicial and expert members as the Central Government may notify from time to time
notify. The Act has balanced the number of judicial and expert members with the authority to
break an impasse vested with chairperson of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is empowered to invite
any one or more persons having specialized knowledge and experience in a particular type of
cases before the Tribunal to assist the Tribunal in a particular case.

Qualifications of members [Section 5]

The qualifications for appointment of Chairperson, Judicial Member and Expert Member are
specified in Section 5 of the Act. It provides that:

 a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairperson or Judicial Member of
the Tribunal unless he is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief
Justice of a High Court, and
 a person who is or has been a Judge of High Court shall also be qualified to be appointed
as a Judicial Member, and
 a person shall not be qualified to be appointment as an Expert Member, unless he has a
degree in Master of Science-Physical Sciences or Life Sciences with a Doctorate degree
or Master of Engineering or Master of Technology and has an experience of fifteen years
in the relevant field including five years practical experience in the field of environment
and forests (including pollution control, hazardous substance management, environment
impact assessment, climate change management and biological diversity management
and forest conservation) in a reputed national level institution, or has administrative
experience of fifteen years including practical experience of five years in dealing with
 environmental matters in the Central or a State Government or in a reputed National or
State level institution.

Procedure for appointment of Members [Section 6]

The Act has authorized the Central Government to appoint the members of the Tribunal, subject
to the fulfillment of the above prescribed qualifications. The Act provides that the Chairperson of
the Tribunal may be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice
of India. The other members shall be appointed by the Central Government on the
recommendation of such Selection Committee as may be prescribed.

Term of Office [Section 7]

The Chairperson, Judicial Member and Expert Member of the Tribunal shall hold office as such
for a term of five years from the date on which they enter upon their office, but shall not be
eligible for reappointment. This is subject to the provisions which states that:

 In case a person, who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, has been appointed as
Chairperson or Judicial Member of the Tribunal, he shall not hold office after he has attained
the age of seventy years. In all other cases the retirement age of Chairman or Judicial
Members shall be on attainment or 67 years or completion of term, whichever is earlier.
 No Expert Member shall hold office after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.

Grounds of removal of the Members [Section 10]

According to the Act, The Central Government may, in consultation with the Chief Justice of
India, remove from office of the Chairperson or Judicial Member of the Tribunal, who,-

 has been adjudged an insolvent; or

 has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government,
involves moral turpitude; or
 has become physically or mentally incapable; or
 has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his
functions; or
 has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public
interest.

However, the Chairperson or Judicial Member shall not be removed from his office except by an
order made by the Central Government after an inquiry made by a Judge of the Supreme Court in
which such Chairperson or Judicial Member has been informed of the charges against him and
given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. similarly, the Expert
Member shall not be removed unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard in the
matter.
Eligibility for filing application before tribunal [Section 18]
The Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 16, an application
for grant of relief or compensation or settlement of dispute may be made to the Tribunal by—

a) the person, who has sustained the injury; or

b) the owner of the property to which the damage has been caused; or
c) where death has resulted from the environmental damage, by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased; or
d) any agent duly authorised by such person or owner of such property or all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or
e) (e) any person aggrieved, including any representative body or organisation; or
f) (f) the Central Government or a State Government or a Union territory Administration or
the Central Pollution Control Board or a State Pollution Control Board or a Pollution
Control Committee or a local authority, or any environmental authority constituted or
established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or any other law for the time
being in force.

Procedure for filing and remedies under the Act

The Tribunal follows a very simple procedure to file an application seeking compensation for
environmental damage, or an appeal against an order or decision of the Government. The official
language of the Tribunal is English. For every application/appeal where no claim for
compensation is involved, a fee of INR 1000/- is to be paid. In case where compensation is being
claimed, the fee will be one percent of the amount of compensation subject to a minimum of INR
1000/-.

Further the detailed specific procedure has been provided under National Green Tribunal
(Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011.

Remedy/relief under the Act (Section 15)

Tribunal may in its order grant the following reliefs to the applicant:

1. Relief/compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage

including accidents involving hazardous substances;
2. Restitution of property damaged;
3. Restitution of the environment for such areas as determined by the NGT

However, no application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or

environment shall be entertained unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on
which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose.
Penalty for non-compliance (Section 26)
 Whosoever, fails to comply with any order or award or decision of the Tribunal under this
act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine which may extend to ten crore rupees or both. In case of continuation of
contravention additional fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for every day
during which such failure or contravention continues.
 However, in case of non-compliance by company fine may be extended to twenty-five crore
rupees, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may
extend to one lakh rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues
after conviction for the first such failure or contravention. For the purpose of punishment
under this act the official responsible for the conducting the business the company shall be
deemed to be guilty unless proved otherwise. (Section 27)
 Every offence under this Act shall be deemed to be non-cognizable within the meaning of the
said Code.

Important Judgments of the Tribunal

Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests

In this case, the NGT expressed its autonomy. It pointed out that “there is nothing in the
provision of the NGT Act that directly or even by necessary implication is indicative of any
external control over the National Green Tribunal. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is
merely an administrative ministry for the National Green Tribunal to provide for means and
finances. Once the budget is provided, the Ministry cannot have any interference in the
functioning of the National Green Tribunal.” In fact, the entire process of appointment and
removal is under the effective control of the Supreme Court of India. The administration is
merely an executing agency within the framework of the Act.

Sudiep Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Appeal No. 73 of 2012 dated 24-3-2014)

In this case, the Central government went against the recommendations of Forest Advisory
Committee, (FAC) which rejected the proposal of diversion of forest, and granted approval to the
project. The power of Central Government to reject the proposal/recommendations of the FAC
and the validity of order were to be scrutinized by the Tribunal. The question was whether the
Government is bound by the recommendations of FAC. The tribunal opined that ‘advice’ would
not make it binding stricto sensu on the Central Government. However, the Central Government
remains under an obligation to duly consider the advice of the FAC and pass a reasoned order
either accepting with or without condition or rejecting the same based on facts, studies and such
other authoritative material, if necessary gathered from further enquiry. The tribunal finally
asked the Government to reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance with law.
M.P. Patil v. Union of India, (Appeal No. 12 of 2012 dated 13-3-2014)

In this case, environment clearance granted to the thermal project of NTPC was challenged by
the local citizens on the ground that proper disclosures were not made in the Environment Impact
Assessment and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan was not disclosed in advance. The
Tribunal which explaining the importance of R&R Plan opined that “the concept of sustainable
development is to drive a balance between environment on the one hand and development on the
other. One of the essential facets of this balancing approach is to find out the impact of
development upon civilization, particularly with reference to human beings. If as a result of
establishment and operation of any project, a large chunk of land belonging to a large number of
persons is expected to be acquired and they are likely to be displaced in one form or the other
from their livelihood, R & R scheme would be one of the most pertinent aspects to be considered
by the EAC”. “An appropriate R&R scheme was not available at the time of the public hearing.
Also, the other objections raised at the public hearing were not properly answered during the
public hearing.”

Further, it was reiterated that the onus of proving that the proposed project was in compliance
with goals of sustainable development was on the party proposing the project and public
participation was emphasized by the court.

Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India; (Original Application No. 21 of 2014)

In this case, the Tribunal took cognizance of the growing pollution levels in Delhi. It directed a
Committee to prepare an action plan. In the interim, it directed that vehicles more than 15 years
old not be allowed to ply or be parked on the roads; that burning plastics and other like materials
be prohibited; that a web portal and a special task force be created; that sufficient space for two
way conveyance be left on all market-roads in Delhi; that cycle tracks be constructed; that
overloaded trucks and defunct buses not be allowed to ply; that air purifiers and automatic
censors be installed in appropriate locations. Further, it directed that a fine of Rs. 1000 be levied
on all cars parked on metaled roads and that multi-level parking be constructed in appropriate
areas.

Manoj Misra v. Union of India; (Original Application No. 6 of 2012)

In this case, an application was filed before the tribunal against the debris and other solid waste
dumped in the Yamuna river bed and effective measures for restoring the natural water body to
its original form. Taking cognizance of the application the tribunal gave a set of twenty eight
directions, ranging from prohibition on dumping debris to restricting silviculture and floriculture
activities, preparation of Action Plan by concerned agencies, timely completion of project ‘Maily
Se Nirmal Yamuna’, setting up of Common Effluent Treatment Plants and many others in the
interest of protecting and restoring the River Yamuna.