The National Green Tribunal was established in 2010 and is considered an outstanding example of an environmental court, functioning in the backdrop of a constitutional safeguard provided to the right to healthy environment as a fundamental right to life of all citizens enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But as we approach nearly a decade since its inception, the looming question remains – has the NGT truly been a champion for the environment?

About NGT:

The NGT was established on October 18, 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, passed by the Central Government. The stated objective of the Central Government was to provide a specialized forum for effective and speedy disposal of cases pertaining to environment protection, conservation of forests and for seeking compensation for damages caused to people or property due to violation of environmental laws or conditions specified while granting permissions.

Powers

The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues and questions that are linked to the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. These include the following:

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.

This means that any violations pertaining only to these laws, or any order / decision taken by the Government under these laws can be challenged before the NGT.

Issue areas:

As a creature of statute, the NGT derives its jurisdiction and powers squarely from the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and is permitted to operate within the confines of the Act only. Of late though, there are winds of change blowing through the Tribunal, with the NGT adopting a new 4-D approach to dealing with cases – ‘dismiss, dispose, delegate and de-reserve’, which appears to be a hugely regressive step taken in the fight for environmental justice.

1.Dismissal of cases

By outright dismissal of petitions filed in the NGT, the current Chairperson had declared that no notices would be issued, and only cases which have an “important question relating to environment and ecology” shall be dealt with by the Tribunal. What is pertinent here is that while the NGT Act always envisaged the Tribunal to only deal with ‘substantial questions relating to the environment’, the method of dismissing cases in the first instance without providing due reasons seems to be a new stand taken by the NGT, curbing the right to access environmental justice.

2.Excessive delegation to committees

More commonly though, the NGT has constituted numerous external committees to look into various aspects of cases, to oversee and monitor the compliance of different environmental laws and rules, and to submit a report thereafter. There are more than 90 committees set up at present, of which nearly 37 committees are being headed by retired Judges of the Supreme Court or of various high courts, including even committees headed by former members of the Tribunal itself.

This method of delegating all of its essential powers and functions to external committees, with similar structure and composition as the Tribunal, gives the impression that the NGT is abrogating its own jurisdiction on cases pertaining to environmental protection. The higher courts of the country have long decried the practice of Tribunals delegating their vital role to executive authorities for their examination on merits, and thus, such excessive delegation by the NGT needs to be checked.

The NGT is undertaking a paradigm shift to change the way that it is perceived as the environmental watchdog of the country. Of late, the Tribunal has shown a heavy preference towards taking suo-motu cognizance of issues originating from newspapers, letters and emails and admitting them as ‘petitions’.

3.Limiting role of an oversight body

By shutting down the redressal mechanism through court-room argumentation, the NGT seems to have limited its role to merely an oversight body, rather than a judicial forum. This has also contributed to a slow decline in public confidence in the Tribunal.

In the absence of proper hearings, there is no opportunity for petitioners to argue the case before the Judges, place evidence in support and to respond to the claims made by the respondent authorities. Since each environmental case is unique in the issues that it raises, set in the context of its specific facts, there is a greater need for proper adjudication in the presence of judicial and technical members appointed to the Tribunal.

4.Administrative problems

Right from its inception, the NGT has had its fair share of teething troubles and administrative roadblocks, mostly relating to the appointment of members, both technical and judicial, which has led to a subsequent lack of quorum to hear cases. While today regular hearings take place in the Principal Bench of the NGT at Delhi, there are still several posts vacant across the four zonal benches, forcing the principal bench to hear the bulk of these cases via video conferencing. The tribunal is to have at least 10 judicial and 10 technical members; however, for most part of the year, the tribunal has been run by just half the required staff. The four regional benches across the country have been established but are being run by the overburdened staff in Delhi.

5.Added pressure due to SC judgment

With the aim to “expedite” and provide “specialised” justice in the field of the environment, the Supreme Court has ruled that all matters related to the environment, pending in various high courts across the country, should be transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). But while the order will enhance the profile of NGT, it might also pose a challenge to the already understaffed and overworked tribunal by at least doubling the number of cases pending with it.

6.Not competent to address all environmental matters

Importantly, the NGT has not been vested with powers to hear any matter relating to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and various laws enacted by States relating to forests, tree preservation etc. Therefore, specific and substantial issues related to these laws cannot be raised before the NGT. 

Conclusion:

NGT has done well so far but many improvements are still required to make accessible, speedy and effective resolution of environmental disputes a practical reality. The Central and State government should work in collaboration with NGT to secure the environment with better, faster enforcement of NGT orders. The government should make it more autonomous and efficient in a view to the growing concern regarding the environment and climate change.