NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

CONTENTS:

1. Introduction.
2. The origin of NGT.
3. The composition and jurisdiction of NGT.
i. The establishment and composition of the tribunal.
ii. The qualifications of the members of tribunal.
iii. Appointment and tenure of office.
iv. Jurisdiction, powers and proceedings of tribunal.
v. An appeal and judicial remedy.
4. The salient features of NGT act 2010.
5. The Green Verdicts of supreme court.
6. Conclusion.
7. Bibliography.

Bibliography

Article referred:

1. Domenico Amirante, “Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective:

Preliminary Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India”, Pace
Environmental Law Review, Article 3, Vol 29, Issue: 2, January 2020.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol29/iss2/3
2. Ms. Ruchi singh, “National Green Tribunal: A Road to Environmental
Justice”, International Journal of Research in Humanities & Soc. Sciences,
Vol 4, Issue: 5, July 2016.
Available at:
http://www.raijmr.com/ijrhs/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/IJRHS_2016_vol04_issue_05_02.pdf
3. Armin Rosencranz & Geetanjoy Sahu, “Assessing the National Green
Tribunal after Four Years”, Manupatra, Vol 5, June 2015.
Available at: http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0F0228AB-
83C3-4B64-9F8E-2E3FABEB20A6.pdf
4. Aruna B Venkat, “The national green tribunal act, 2010: an overview”,
NALSAR Law Review, Vol 6: No.1, 2011.
Available at:
http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/NALSARLawRw/2011/7.html
5. Vivek Dubey, “The national green tribunal in Indian perspective”, Med
Crave: Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, Vol 7, Issue
5, 2019.
Available at:
https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/FRCIJ-07-00290.pdf
6. Swapan kumar Patra and Venni venkata Krishna, “National Green Tribunal
and Environmental Justice in India”, Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Science,
vol 44(4), April 2014.

Newspaper referred:

1. Jairam Ramesh, “The hues in the green tribunal’s resilient journey”, The
Hindu, October19,2020
Although, the concept of environmental protection is not new in India, it has its
root deeper in history when Bishnois of Rajasthan sacrificed their lives to save
trees in 1730 and the famous Chipko movement that began in 1973 in Kumanu
and Garhwal region of Uttarakhand State. However, today environmental
justice has become the need of the hour when people are dying because of the
pollution levels that has already hit the alarming limits, no doubt that
development is an essential part of civilised society, but we must maintain a
balance between environmental justice and sustainable development. The Green
Court has proved to maintain the balance with environment protection viz-a viz
a sustainable development. Environmental rights were not present in the
original version of Constitution of India. Therefore, environmental
jurisprudence was not known appellation for Indian judiciary. It is the 42nd
constitutional amendment in 1976 which changed the landscape by introducing
Article 48-A and Article 51A(g) in Constitution of India. The Supreme Court of
India in its landmark judgements has called the need for “Green courts” many
times for the expeditious disposal of environment related cases. The Supreme
Court has elevated the ‘right to healthy environment’ to the status of a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the process of
progressive enrichment of the environmental jurisprudence with principles like
sustainable development, polluter pays, public trust doctrine, precautionary
principle and intergenerational equity.
For the first time in Subhash Kr. vs. State of Bihar 1 in 1991. The Supreme Court
held that right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
and include the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full
enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in
derogation of laws a citizen has recourse to Art.32 of the Constitution for
removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to life. A call
has been made for the constitution of green Tribunal by the Supreme Court for
the immediate relief to the victims of industrial disasters.
In Charanlalsahu vs. Union of India2 and in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India 3
(the Oleum Gas Leak case), the Supreme Court established the concept of
absolute liability – “stricter than strict liability” – for disasters aroused from the
storage of or usage of hazardous materials from their factories.
Further in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India 4, the Supreme
Court employed the “precautionary principle” and “polluter pay principle” as a
1
- (1991) 1 SCC 598
2
1990 AIR SC 1480
3
- 1987 AIR SC 1086
4
- 1996 AIR SC 2715
part of the law of the country. Although Industries are vital for the country’s
development, but having regard to pollution caused by them, principle of
‘Sustainable Development’ has to be adopted as the balancing concept.
In Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India 5,(the Bichhri
pollution case), followed the decision in the Oleum Gas leak case and based on
the polluter pays principle, the polluting industries were directed to pay
compensation for the harm caused by them to the villagers in the affected areas,
especially to the soil and to the underground water.
Articulating the doctrine of ‘Public Trust’ in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath 6, the
Supreme Court held that “Resources such as air, sea, waters and the forests have
such a great importance to the people as a whole that by leasing ecologically
fragile land to the Motel management, the State Government had committed a
serious breach of public trust”.
 The Government of India for the first time, made an attempt in 1989, to draft
“Environment Court Bill” on the lines; pattern of Consumer Protection Act,
1986. This work was assigned to J.P.N. Bhagwati, who suggested the setting up
of the Environmental Court. The Bill made provision for the establishment of
the National Environment Court and the Environment Court for each State and
Union Territory. But the attempt was not materialised for unknown reasons. On
the contrary, the Government came forward with a new draft for establishing a
National Environment Tribunal in 1992. The Bill envisages to cover
environmental cases and to provide for compensation. In fact, the Bill was a
sequel to the decision of the apex court in Delhi/Oleum Gas Leak case.
However, the Bill was not introduced in the Parliament.
In view of increasing threats from the environmental hazards and the urgent
need to prevent the same, the Indian Parliament passed the National
Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, which enables the establishment of National
Environment Tribunal at Centre and environmental court. Secondly, the
parliament passed the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997,
which provides for the constitution of an “Authority” to hear the grievances
pertaining to environmental pollutions. The third attempt is the passing Of the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Under this Act, quasi-judicial powers are
conferred on the District Collector. He is empowered to award compensation to
the victims of hazardous substances. A brief summary of the said legislation is
enumerated hereunder:

5
1996 AIR SC 1446
6
(1997) 1 SCC 388
1. The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995;
The main object of the Act is to protect the environment from hazardous and
inherently dangerous activities. It aims: to provide compensation to the victims
of hazardous substances; to provide for national legislation in compliance with
the recommendations of the Rio Summit/Earth Summit (Principle 11); and to
develop and codify the principle of strict liability in all such cases and to
establish a National Environment Tribunal for effective and speedy disposal of
environmental cases and to pay appropriate compensation to the victims.
2. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997;
An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Environment Appellate
Authority to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any
industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes
shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
3. The National Environment Appellate Authority (Appeal) Rules, 1997.
There are many more cases relating to environmental justice which led to the
formation of National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and National
Environment Appellate Act, 1997 by the Indian Parliament but unfortunately
both proved to be non-runner7.
The Policy and Law Division of the Ministry is partly implementing the
schemes ‘Assistance for Abatement of Pollution, Environment Policy and Law’
and ‘Establisment of Environment Commission and Tribunal’ and providing
legislative and institutional support to other thematic divisions whenever need
for any amendment to existing legislation/ notification or enactment of new
legislation arises. In addition, the division is specifically looking after the
implementation of the National Environment Policy 2006, National Green
Tribunal Bill 2009, recommendations of the Law Commission in its 186th
report and the Ecomark Scheme.
In the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in A.P. PollutionControl Board
vs. M.V. Nayudu: 1999(2) SCC 718, the Court referred to theneed for
establishing Environmental Courts which would have the benefit of expert
advice from environmental scientists/technically qualified persons,
as part of the judicial process, after an elaborate discussion of the views of  juris
7
Ruchi Singh[Subject: Social Science] International Journal of Research in Humanities & Soc.
Sciences [I.F. = 0.564] Vol. 4, Issue: 5,July:2016 ISSN:(P) 2347-5404 ISSN:(O)2320 771X
http://www.raijmr.com/ijrhs/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IJRHS_2016_vol04_issue_05_02.pdf
ts in various countries. In the subsequent follow-up judgment in A.P.Pollution
Control Board vs. M.V. Nayudu: 2001(2) SCC 62, the SupremeCourt, referred
to the serious differences in the constitution of appellateauthorities under
plenary as well as delegated legislation (the reference hereis to the appellate
authorities constituted under the Water (Prevention
andControl of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution
) Act, 1981), and pointed out that except in one State where theappellate
authority was manned by a retired High Court Judge, in other States they were
manned only by bureaucrats. These appellate authoritieswere not having either
judicial or environment back-up on the Bench. TheSupreme Court opined that
the Law Commission could therefore examinethe disparities in the constitution
of these quasi- judicial bodies and suggesta new scheme so that there could be
uniformity in the structure of the
quasi- judicial bodies which supervise the orders passed by administrative or  pu
blic authorities, including orders of the Government. For instance, these
appellate bodies can examine the correctness of the decision of a
pollutioncontrol board to grant or refuse a no-objection certificate to an
industry interms of the Water Act. Environmental Courts were advocated in two
earlier judgments also. One was M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India: 1986(2)SCC
176 (at page 202) where the Supreme Court said that in as much
asenvironment cases involve assessment of scientific data, it was desirable toset
up environment courts on a regional basis with a professional Judge andtwo
experts, keeping in view the expertise required for such adjudication.There
should be an appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of theenvironment
court. The other judgment was Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs.
Union of India, 1996(3) SCC 212, in which the SupremeCourt observed (see p.
252) that Environmental Courts having civil andcriminal jurisdiction must be
established to deal with the environmentalissues in a speedy
manner.We may also state that the National Environmental AppellateAuthority 
constituted under the National Environmental AppellateAuthority Act, 1997, for
the limited purpose of providing a forum to reviewthe administrative decisions
on Environment Impact Assessment, had verylittle work. It appears that
since the year 2000, no Judicial Member has been appointed. So far as the
National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995 isconcerned, the legislation has yet
to be notified despite the expiry of eightyears. Since it was enacted by
Parliament, the Tribunal under the Act is yetto be constituted. Thus,
these two Tribunals are non-functional and remainonly on paper. In view of the
observations of the Supreme Court in the above
said judgments, and having regard to the inadequacies of the existing appellatea
uthorities, - which neither contain judges nor have the assistance of experts- and
their limited jurisdiction, - the Commission proposed to review
the position with a view to bring uniformity
in the constitution of these bodiesand the scope of their jurisdiction. These
bodies must, in our view,
becalled ‘Environmental Courts’ and should consist of judicial membersassisted
by technical experts. Our scheme as proposed in Chapter IX is thatthere should
be an Environmental Court in each State (or in some cases for one or more
States) which should be able to take on the burden of theenvironmental cases
from the High Courts and at the same time decide thesecases with the help of
experts. An Environmental Court at the level of eachState is proposed so as to
be accessible to the litigants in each State. Thesaid Court must have appellate
jurisdiction over
theauthoritiesunderWater Act, 1974, Air Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protec
tion) Act, 1986. Itis proposed that the Environment Court should exercise
original as well asappellate jurisdiction. It should be able to grant all orders
which a CivilCourt could grant, including the grant of ‘compensation’ as
visualized bythe National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995.The
alternative suggestion for having a single appellate Court atDelhi over the
statutory authorities has not appealed to us inasmuch as practically no person or
groups of persons residing in any local area who areaggrieved by orders of these
authorities will be able to come all the way toDelhi to raise their grievances. If
the Court is a single Court in Delhi, it willnot be accessible and several
environmental issues will remain stagnant,may not be pursued and will remain
unadjudicated by a Court of law.

The 186th Law Commission Report.

Pursuant to the observations of the Supreme Court of India in four judgments,
namely, M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1986 (2) SCC 176; Indian Council for
Environmental-Legal Action Vs Union of India:1996(3)SCC 212; A.P.
Pollution Control Board Vs M.V. Nayudu:1999(2)SCC 718 and A.P. Pollution
Control Board Vs M.V. Nayudu II: 2001(2)SCC62, the Law Commission has
undertaken a detailed study of the subject of “Environmental Courts”. In the 3rd
of the above judgments, reference was made to the idea of a “multi-faceted”
Environmental Court with judicial and technical/scientific inputs as formulated
by Lord Woolf in England recently and to Environmental Court legislations as
they exist in Australia, New Zealand and other countries. Having regard to the
complex issues of fact of science and technology which arise in environmental
litigation and in particular in the elimination of pollution in air and water, it is
now recognized in several countries that the Courts must not only consist of
Judicial Members but must also have a statutory panel of members comprising
Technical or Scientific experts. We may in this context refer to the
recent Report of Dr. Malcolm Grant in UK(2000) and also to the Report of the
Royal Commission(23rd Report , March 2002).With Judicial and Technical
inputs on the Bench, the Environmental Courts in Australia and New Zealand
function as appellate Courts against orders passed under the corresponding
Water Acts, Air Acts and Noise Acts and various Environment related Acts and
also have original jurisdiction. They have all the powers of a Civil Court. Some
have even powers of a Criminal Court. The Commission has, therefore,
prepared a Report (copy enclosed) containing Chapters I to X reviewing
the Laws on “Environment Courts” in each State (or for group of States) and
suggested in Chapters IX and X that these Courts must be established to reduce
the pressure and burden on the High Courts and Supreme Court. These Courts
will be Courts of fact and law, exercising all powers of a civil court in its
original jurisdiction. They will also have appellate judicial powers against
orders passed by the concerned authorities under the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 and The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with an enabling provision
that the Central Government may notify these Courts as appellate courts under
other environment related Acts as well. Such a law can be made under Art. 253
of the Constitution of India, read with Entry 13A of List I of Schedule VII to
give effect to decisions taken in Stockholm Conference of 1972 and Rio
Conference of 1992.The proposed Environment Courts at the State level will, in
the Commission’s view, be accessible to citizens in each State.
 
National Environment Policy, 2006
The National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006 is the first comprehensive policy
document formulated at national level for realizing the overarching goal of
sustainable development in the country. It does not displace but builds on earlier
policies. It is the outcome of extensive consultations with experts, governments,
industry associations, academic and research institutions, civil society, NGOs
and the public. The NEP outlines the significance of a number of new and
continuing initiatives for enhancing environmental conservation which requires
coordinated action of diverse actors and stakeholders at all levels.
The National Green Tribunal Bill, 2009
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Bill, 2009 was introduced in the Lok
Sabha on 31st July, 2009. The Bill provides for the establishment of a National
Environment Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases
relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other
natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to
environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and
property. The Bill was referred to the Department related Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests for
examination and report. The Committee submitted its Report to the Rajya Sabha
Secretariat on 24th November, 2009. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 3 rd
December, 2009 has approved the proposal regarding official amendments to
NGT Bill 2009. Presently, the Bill is pending in the Lok Sabha for
consideration and passing.
National Environment Protection Authority
The Ministry has initiated a proposal to establish a National Environment
Protection Authority (NEPA) to strengthen the regulatory framework and to
improve the environmental governance in the country. A concept note on NEPA
was uploaded in the Ministry’s website and large numbers of suggestions have
been received from various stakeholders. As part of the consultation process, a
meeting was conducted on 26th November, 2009 in New Delhi in which
representatives of State Governments, State Pollution Control Boards/ Pollution
Control Committees, Central Pollution Control Board and line Ministries
participated. A study has been awarded to IIT, Delhi to workout the scope and
architecture of the NEPA in detail.
With this wide elucidations of the concept of environmental protection had
become the warp and woof for environmental jurisprudence which not only
protects the livelihoods based on environment but also added a large number of
laws relating to environment and led to the foundation of National Green
Tribunal