The Supreme Court, on 7th October, declared that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is vested with suo moto power while discharging its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, and was authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
In 2018, an article titled “Garbage Gangs of Deonar: The Kingpins and Their Multi-Crore Trade” was published in the online news portal, The Quint. The article spoke of the perils of mismanaging solid waste and the adverse impact it would have on the environment and public health. The NGT took suo moto cognizance of the article and directed that the author, Ankita Sinha, be the applicant in the case registered at the NGT’s instance. Thereafter, the Deonar Dumping Site was inspected and pursuant to the report of the inspecting team, it was found that the landfill site failed to comply with the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. Pursuant to the report of the inspecting team, the NGT noted that ‘damage to the environment and public health is self-evident’ and ordered the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to pay compensation of Rs. 5 crores.
Pursuant to the order, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. While entertaining the appeal, the Supreme Court ordered a stay on the operation of the order passed by the NGT and arranged for analogous consideration of cases where issue arose with regards to the NGT’s power to exercise suo moto jurisdiction. Counsels for the appellant argued that NGT is a Tribunal and a creature of statute and hence cannot act suo moto, in discharge of its function. The forum cannot assume inherent powers as under Article 32 and Article 226 and its domain is circumscribed by the limitations so imposed. The counsels also argued that the NGT has an adjudicatory role to decide disputes which necessarily means the involvement of two or more contesting parties. Similarly, Mr Anand Grover, who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court, was of the opinion that the NGT was incapable of triggering its own action.
The Supreme Court, ultimately ruled in favour of the NGT’s power to initiate suo moto proceedings. The Court traced the legislative history of the creation of NGT on the basis of the 186th Law Commission Report, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held at Rio De Janeiro in June, 1992 where India participated.
It was held that the NGT is intended to address wide ranging societal concerns and these have prompted us to opt for purposive interpretation. The statute will have to be read in its entirety and each provision of the act must be given its due meaning by comprehending the mischief it intends to remedy. The Court would lean towards an interpretation that would allow fructification of the legislative intention and is forward looking. It was held that provisions of the act must be read with the intention to facilitate them, since they concern the protection of rights under Article 21 and deal with crucial environmental policies. The NGT is set up as under the constitutional mandate in Entry 13 of List I in Schedule VII in order to enforce Article 21 in the context of the environment. The Court hence observed that the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights and that the role of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis but to perform equally vital roles which are preventative, ameliorative or remedial.
The Court also observed the inherent risks of empowering a tribunal with suo moto jurisdiction, especially if the NGT was acting outside its domain. However, it noted that the NGT Act had sufficient procedural safeguards in place and if the Tribunal were to act within the confines of its statutory mandate, there would not be cause of concern enough to curtail the power of a specialised forum.
In its conclusion, the Supreme Court noted as under:
“It would be procedural hair splitting to argue (as it has been) that the NGT could act upon a letter being written to it, but learning about an environmental exigency through any other means cannot trigger the NGT into action. To endorse such an approach would surely be rendering the forum procedurally shackled or incapacitated.”
In a world where global warming and other climate changes are gradually becoming irreversible, it is critical that specialised forums like the NGT receive this shot in the arm. The NGT is an institution comprising of both judicial and environmental experts. Such institutions, are well equipped to address urgent concerns regarding human rights and end up losing their efficacy through such procedural nit-picking. Such shackles, as the Supreme Court observed, are against spirit of the NGT Act and would be ignorant of the evolving nature of environmental degradation.
Disclaimer: All information has been taken from publicly available government sources. This article is solely for providing the information to the public and legal advice must be sought before using this information.
Also published in National Political Mirror
References:
1.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn
2.https://www.conservationindia.org/resources/ngt
Comments