NGT and protection of Environment Introduction: the birth of NGT The National Green Tribunal was established in the year 2010 in order to uplift the right to healthy environment which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution The courts in India are overburdened with bac!log of cases which ma!es it unfeasible to dispose of environmental cases e"peditiously #asically in environmental cases immediate preventive action is re$uired in order to protect the environment from degradation which the court fails to provide Therefore urgent urgent need was felt for an alternativ alternative e forum so that environment environmental al cases were resolved without much delay The need for setting up of %nvironmental court was &rst highlighted by the 'upr 'uprem eme e Cour Courtt of India India in (C (eht (ehta a v )*I )*I The The +udg +udgmen mentt high highlig light hted ed the the di,culties di,culties faced by +udges +udges while disposing disposing of environmenta environmentall cases It further observed that -%nvironment Court. must be established for e"peditious disposal of environmental cases and reiterated it time and again As a conse$uence two legislation were enacted by the parliament the National %nvironment Tribunal Act/ 1 and National %nvironment Appellate Authority Act/ 1 The two Acts was utter failure and there was growing demand that some legislation must be passed to deal with environmental cases more e,ciently e ,ciently and e,caciously e,caciously The 3aw Commission while giving model for NGT referred the practise of the %nvironmental Courts in Australia and New 4ealand The commission relied on -multi5faceted. Court with +udicial and technical inputs As a result NGT was formed/ it is a special fast5trac! $uasi5+udicial body comprising of +udges and environment e"pert who will ensure e"peditious disposal of cases The Act is also an endeavor of the 6arliament under Article 27 of the Constitution read with %ntry 18 of 3ist I of 'chedule 9II to ful&ll the obligation of India towards 'toc!holm :eclaration/ 12 and ;io :eclaration of 12 in which India participated/ calling upon the 'tates to ta!e appropriate steps to protect huma human n envi enviro ronm nmen entt and and to deve develo lop p nati nation onal al laws laws rega regard rdin ing g liabi liabilit lity y and and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage
Analysis of NGT working An analysis of the NGT since its inception has been progressive in its approach towards environmental protection in general and the right of marginali
1. Baijnath Prajapati v. v. Ministry of of Environment and Forests NATIONAL GEEN TIB!NAL PIN"IPAL BEN"#$ NE% &EL#I
Decided On: 20.01.2012
This case is an Appeal challenging the orders granting environmental clearance in favor of M/s Moser Baer Poer ! "nfrastr#ct#re $td for a coal %ased thermal poer plant. After a fe months& the Appellant filed an application see'ing the ithdraal of his Appeal on the gro#nd that after caref#l consideration& he has come to the concl#sion that the present developmental pro(ect is necessar) for the region and he does not oppose it. "t is claimed that the decision to ithdra the application has %een made vol#ntaril) itho#t an) #nd#e infl#ence. The *+T emphasi,ed that it has %een constit#ted for strengthening environmental protection and the conservation of forests and other nat#ral reso#rces %) referring to the -tatements of O%(ects and easons of the *+T Act& 2010. The *+T ca#tioned f#t#re litigants against invo'ing its (#risdiction for frivolo#s litigation that #nnecessaril) cons#mes the time of the tri%#nal itho#t serving the intended p#rpose. The *+T also affirmed that it does not have the poer to prevent the ithdraal of the case and also does not have s#o mot# poers to proceed ith the case. oever& the *+T imposed a fine of s 0&000 on the Appellant to %e paid to the espondent in order to prevent s#ch frivolo#s litigations arising in the f#t#re. '. ajeev ()ri v. *i+e "hairman &e,hi &eve,opment A)thority -&&A and Ors NATIONAL GEEN TIB!NAL PIN"IPAL BEN"#$ NE% &EL#I
Decided On: 1.0.2013 "n this case& the Applicant so#ght restit#tion/ restoration 4#nder -ection 1 of the *+T Act5 of 6#sha' *ala r#nning thro#gh Defence 7olon)& *e Delhi folloing the everse 8nvironment "mpact -t#d) cond#cted %) an independent %od) a#thori,ed %) the tri%#nal. The Applicant contends that the DDA9s or' on the drainage s)stem has ca#sed adverse environmental impacts and ha,ards to h#man health and safet). This case onl) deals ith the maintaina%ilit) of the present s#it and does not ad(#dicate on the merits. The espondents contend that the present application is %arred %) limitation %eca#se of a dela) of more than si months as per -ection 1 of the *+T Act. The *+T held that even ass#ming that the constr#ction of the drain started m#ch earlier& the ill effects of the constr#ction co#ld not have %een manifest from the moment of starting the pro(ect. "ll effects grad#all) mo#nted ith the progress in the constr#ction pro(ect. ence& at ever) ne stage& fresh and distinct ca#se of action arose. 8ssentiall)& the *+T held that the principle of rec#rring ca#se of action o#ld %e applica%le and each s#ch ca#se of action o#ld have its on limitation period and o#ld not %e %arred %) the limitation imposed %) the earlier act. ence& the espondents contentions ere dismissed and the application as held maintaina%le. /. %i,fred 0. v. Ministry of Environment Forests
NATIONAL GEEN TIB!NAL PIN"IPAL BEN"#$ NE% &EL#I
Decided On: 1;.0;.201 The present case as instit#ted %) an Application filed %) a gro#p of fishermen against environment9 and held that it had (#risdiction to entertain all s#ch matters pertaining to the environment as per environmental (#rispr#dence and p#rposive constr#ction of the *+T Act. 2. P. ()ndararajan and Ors. v. The &ep)ty e3istrar Nationa, Green Tri4)na, and Ors. #IG# "O!T OF MA&A(
Decided On: 0;.0;.201 This case dealt ith the iss#e of the validit) and eercise of s#o mot# (#risdiction %) the *+T #nder the *+T Act. The 7o#rt relied etensivel) on the case of ?nion of "ndia and others v. Ma(or +eneral -hri6ant -harma and another 201 4@5 -cale 3 in coming to its concl#sions. The main concl#sions derived from the said (#dgment are as follos: •
The poer of (#dicial revie vested in the igh 7o#rt #nder Article 223 is one of the %asic essential feat#res of the 7onstit#tion and an) legislation incl#ding Armed orces Act& 200; cannot override or c#rtail (#risdiction of the igh 7o#rt #nder Article 223 of the 7onstit#tion of "ndia. 4efer: $. 7handra and -.*. M#'her(ee5.
•
The (#risdiction of the igh 7o#rt #nder Article 223 and this 7o#rt #nder Article @2 tho#gh cannot %e circ#mscri%ed %) the provisions of an) enactment& the) ill certainl) have d#e regard to the legislative intent evidenced %) the provisions of the Acts and o#ld eercise their (#risdiction consistent ith the provisions of the Act. 4efer: Mafatlal "nd#stries $td.5
•
hen a stat#tor) for#m is created %) la for redressal of grievances& a rit petition sho#ld not %e entertained ignoring the stat#tor) dispensation. 4efer: *ivedita -harma5.
•
The igh 7o#rt ill not entertain a petition #nder Article 223 of the 7onstit#tion if an effective alternative remed) is availa%le to the aggrieved person or the stat#te #nder hich the action complained of has %een ta'en itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. 4efer: *ivedita -harma5.
5. Bhopa, Gas Peedith Mahi,a !dyo3 (an3athan and Ors. v. !nion of India -!OI and Ors. (!PEME "O!T OF IN&IA
Decided On: 0.0C.2012 "n this case& the -#preme 7o#rt essentiall) dealt ith the iss#e of hether the (o% of overseeing vario#s 7ommittees involved in the Bhopal Memorial ospital and esearch 7entre 4BM75 and Bhopal Memorial ospital Tr#st 4BMT/Tr#st5 4hich as constit#ted for p#rposes of providing healthcare for affected victims of the Bhopal +as Traged)5 as to %e transferred to the appropriate igh 7o#rt. The 7o#rt also epressl) limited the (#risdiction of the *+T in the present matter. The 7o#rt held that since the present caser does not involve an) comple or other environmental iss#e& and primaril) re=#ires administrative s#pervision of the orders of the 7o#rts& it is appropriate to transfer it to the Madh)a Pradesh igh 7o#rt #nder its s#pervisor) (#risdiction to %etter serve the ends of (#stice.
6. *e,,ore "iti7ens %e,fare For)ms and Ors. v. !nion of India and Ors. IN T#E #IG# "O!T OF MA&A(
Decided On: 0;.0.2013 This case disc#ssed the genesis of environmental reg#lator) a#thorities in "ndia and specificall) addressed the iss#e of hether the $oss of 8colog) A#thorit) 4$o8A5 sho#ld %e o#nd #p and replaced %) the *+T. The 7o#rt concl#ded in the affirmative and iss#ed the folloing orders: • •
•
The $o8A as a permanent %od) is dismissed. All the claims pending investigation/ en=#ir) on the file of the $o8A shall stand transferred to the 7hennai %ranch of *+T. The period of limitation prescri%ed #nder -ection 14@5 and -ection 1 4@5 or -ection 13 of the *ational +reen Tri%#nal Act& 2010& ill not appl) to the claims so transferred from the $o8A& in vie of the fact that those claims ere entertained %)
•
an A#thorit) hich had (#risdiction to entertain them& at the time hen the) ere ta'en on file and also in vie of the fact that the period of limitation prescri%ed in the *ational +reen Tri%#nal Act co#ld not %e made applica%le to cases transferred from another A#thorit). The prescription regarding co#rt fee contained in #le 12 of the *ational +reen
•
Tri%#nal 4Practices and Proced#re5 #les 2011 shall not appl) to the claims transferred from the $o8A& since the) are transferred #nder orders of co#rt& after the a%olition of an A#thorit). "n vie of the h#ge vol#me of claims no getting transferred to the *ational +reen
•
Tri%#nal& the 7entral +overnment shall constit#te& at least one additional Bench at 7hennai& as #nderta'en %) the learned Additional -olicitor +eneral& for the present. The 7entral +overnment shall eamine the constit#tion of another additional Bench& ithin si months& so that the Tri%#nal does not cr#sh #nder the eight of s#ch a h#ge vol#me. The ?nion of "ndia shall consider reha%ilitating the emplo)ees of the $oss of 8colog) A#thorit) hose partic#lars are f#rnished in paragraph ; a%ove %) a%sor%ing them into the *ational +reen Tri%#nal.
The case of corporate giant Mantri Techone !vt "td and #ore Mind $oftware $ervices !vt "td: The recent +udgment of NGT which was propounded against (antri Constructions Group of #angalore is big boost to the environment and sustainability activism in #engaluru carried out by citiet ect all the construction operation which is being carried out within meter of la!es %arlier !nown as (anipal %TA Infotech/ the mi"ed residential pro+ect got clearance under 'pecial %conomic 4one ?'%4@ category/ in a =igh 3evel Clearance Committee meeting held during Global Investors (eet in 2000/ when ' ( rishna was the chief minister of arnata!a The pro+ect that was dormant for a long time got reactivated in recent years The ambitious IT par!5cum5residential pro+ect where (antri :evelopers was a partner/ was planned at a cost of ;s 2700 crore The pro+ect was planned on 2 acres of land between two of #engaluruBs important la!es/ which forms the catchment area for #ellandur la!e The pro+ect was renamed as (antri Tech
A case was &led in the =igh Court of arnata!a by Namma #engaluru Doundation ?N#D@/ an nongovernmental organisation founded by ;a+yasabha (6 ;a+eev Chandrashe!har The case in NGT was fought by Dorward Doundation/ 6ra+a5;AAG and #angalore %nvironment Trust N#D withdrew the 6I3 in the =igh Court and impleaded in the NGT case The NGT stayed the mega pro+ect through its interim order dated 1Eth April 2018
"et%s look at the key highlights of the case:
1. 89.85.'815: NGT: *+T penali,ed %oth %#ilders for commencing constr#ction %efore receiving clearances and cites the violation of environmental las. Mantri Tech,one Private $imited and 7ore Mind -oftare and -ervices Private $imited are ordered to pa) s 11;.@ crore and s 22. crore as penalt) respectivel)& for Eillegal and #na#thori,edE constr#ction in an ecologicall) sensitive area. *+T constit#tes an eightFmem%er committee to inspect& validate and s#%mit a report ithin three months. 2. '8.85.'815: (": The -#preme 7o#rt granted a sta) on the *ational +reen Tri%#nal 4*+T5 order imposing a penalt) of s 11;.@ crore on Mantri Tech,one Pvt $td and s 22. crore on 7oremind -oftare and -ervices Pvt $td for not folloing the green norms. The sta) as granted as Mantri and 7oremind contended that the) ere not given eno#gh opport#nit) to %e heard %efore the *+T. The *+T alloed the appellants to proceed ith constr#ction onl) on pa)ment of penalt). The -#preme 7o#rt sta)s the fines and gives the companies a ee'9s time to approach *+T ith a revie application. @. 89.85.'816: NGT: The Tri%#nal disposed of Original Application *o. 222 of 201 in the case of orard o#ndation ! Ors. v. -tate of 6arnata'a ! Ors. B) its detailed (#dgment& vario#s directions ere passed s#ch as #pholding the lev) of the 8nvironmental 7ompensation pa)a%le %) the espondents to the t#ne of "* 11; crores and "* 22. crores& appointment of igh Poered 7ommittee hich as re=#ired to s#%mit its report to the Tri%#nal& etc. The Tri%#nal also imposed certain conditions and iss#ed appropriate directions& as a condition precedent for these pro(ects to reFcommence and/or complete their pro(ects in accordance ith la. ;ey #i3h,i3hts of 0)d3ment a5 *e %#ffer ,one limits demarcated or la'es: ; m from the peripher) of the ater %od) to %e maintained as green • %elt and %#ffer ,one for all eisting ater %odies. 0 m from the edge in case of primar) a('#leas. • @ m from the edge in case of secondar) a('#leas. • 2 m from the edge in case of tertiar) a('#leas. • These %#ffer ,ones are to %e treated as no constr#ction ,ones in order to maintain • s#staina%le development. All eisting constr#ctions of the espondents in s#ch areas are to %e demolished • and no ne constr#ctions in these areas are alloed. %5 All -TP9s operating in the area hether +overnment or privatel) oned sho#ld meet the revised standards notified %) 7P7B/ Mo8.
c5 Bangalore receives less ater than re=#ired from the 7a#ver) river and the entire ,one falls ithin the critical ,one in terms of gro#nd ater eploitation. ence the folloing r#les have %een prescri%ed: At the time of application for grant of 8nvironmental 7learance 4G87H5& the ater • re=#irement for constr#ction phase and operation phase are to %e considered separatel). All pro(ect proponents sho#ld mandatoril) #se onl) treated seage ater for • constr#ction p#rposes and this sho#ld %e a condition precedent for 87. "f the =#alit) of treated seage ater does not conform to the =#alit) re=#ired for • constr#ction& necessar) #p gradation in -TP sho#ld %e immediatel) #nderta'en. The -#preme 7o#rt on 12 th Ma) 2013 sta)ed the s 11; crore penalt) imposed on real estate developer Mantri Tech,one Pvt $td %) the *ational +reen Tri%#nal for encroaching ater %odies in Bengal#r#. A %ench of 7hief I#stice T - Tha'#r and I#stice Ban#mathi directed maintenance of stat#s =#o and as'ed all the %#ilders not to raise constr#ctions ithin ; metres from the la'e and 0 metres from the storm ater drain in the cit)& in 'eeping ith the *+Ts direction. The anal)sis of some of the prominent cases disposed of %) *+T demonstrates that it is most consistent and progressive environmental a#thorit) of "ndia. The *+T refrains to favo#r infrastr#ct#re pro(ect nor does it ca#ses dela) in resolving environmental cases %efore it. "t has %een largel) s#ccessf#l in implementing its decisions& hich more often are sta)ing environmental clearance. Also the *+T appears to have empoered vario#s legal advisors all over "ndia to represent considera%le a#thorit) in environmental la.
