The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

1. Background

In M.C. Mehta (1986) and in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999), the Supreme Court had recommended environmental courts with judicial and expert members, because environmental cases turn on scientific evidence. The Law Commission's 186th Report (2003) recommended the same. Earlier attempts, the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997, either never became operational or had a narrow role. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 repealed both and set up the Tribunal, which began functioning in 2010 with its principal bench at New Delhi and zonal benches at Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai. Its preamble refers to the Rio decisions and to the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.

2. Composition (ss.4 and 5)

• A full-time Chairperson; not less than ten and up to twenty full-time Judicial Members; and not less than ten and up to twenty full-time Expert Members (s.4(1)).
• The Chairperson or a Judicial Member must be or have been a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court; a Judge of a High Court is also qualified to be a Judicial Member (s.5(1)).
• An Expert Member needs a master's degree in science with a doctorate, or a master's in engineering or technology, and fifteen years' experience including five years in environment and forests; or administrative experience of fifteen years including five years in environmental matters (s.5(2)).
• The Tribunal sits in benches combining judicial and expert members. Qualifications, terms and conditions of service are now governed largely by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (s.10A).

3. Original jurisdiction (s.14)

The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and the question arises out of the implementation of the enactments in Schedule I:

• the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
• the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
• the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, now the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam;
• the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
• the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
• the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; and
• the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 are not in Schedule I. A “substantial question relating to environment” (s.2(m)) includes a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation that affects the community at large, or causes substantial damage to the environment or property, or damage to public health that is broadly measurable. An application must be made within six months of the cause of action, extendable by sixty days (s.14(3)).

4. Relief, compensation and restitution (ss.15 and 17)

• Section 15: the Tribunal may order relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage under the Schedule I Acts (including accidents with hazardous substances), restitution of property damaged, and restitution of the environment of an area. This is in addition to relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act. The claim must be made within five years of the cause, extendable by sixty days.
• Section 17: the person responsible for an accident or for the adverse impact of an activity is liable to pay relief or compensation under the heads in Schedule II; where several are responsible, the Tribunal may apportion liability equitably; and in case of an accident the Tribunal applies the principle of no fault (s.17(3)), the statutory form of absolute liability.

5. Appellate jurisdiction (s.16)

Appeals lie to the Tribunal, within thirty days (extendable by sixty), against orders of appellate authorities and State Governments under the Water Act (ss.28, 29, 33A), the Water Cess Act, the Air Act (ss.31, 31A), the Forest (Conservation) Act (s.2), the Environment (Protection) Act (s.5, and grants of environmental clearance), and the Biological Diversity Act (determinations of benefit sharing). Since 1 April 2024, appeals against penalties imposed by adjudicating officers also go to the NGT, within sixty days and on deposit of 10% of the penalty: s.15D of the 1986 Act and s.39B of the Air Act; the Water Act's s.45C does the same where the 2024 amendment applies, and s.55A of the Biological Diversity Act for penalties under that Act.

6. Who may apply, procedure and principles

• s.18(2): the person injured, the owner of damaged property, the legal representatives of a deceased person, an authorised agent, a representative body or organisation, or the Central or State Government, Board or authority. Standing is wide, as in PIL.
• s.19: the Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act (now the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), is guided by the principles of natural justice, regulates its own procedure, and has the powers of a civil court for summoning, documents, affidavits and review, as well as power to pass interim orders including injunction or stay and to order any person to cease and desist from violating a Schedule I enactment. It is to try to dispose of matters within six months (s.18(3)).
• s.20: the Tribunal shall, while passing any order, decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
• s.22: appeal to the Supreme Court within ninety days on any ground in section 100 CPC, that is, a substantial question of law.
• s.26: failure to comply with an order is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine up to ten crore rupees (twenty-five crore for a company), or both.
• s.29: civil courts have no jurisdiction over matters the Tribunal can decide.

7. Cases on the Tribunal's powers

• Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation, 2019 INSC 315: on allotment of land near wetlands and lakes in Bengaluru, the Court upheld the Tribunal's power under sections 14, 15 and 16 to give directions for restitution and protection of the environment, including buffer zones, and treated the Tribunal as a specialised forum with wide remedial powers.
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 INSC 624: a three-judge Bench held that the NGT has suo motu power. The Act must be read purposively, to further the Article 21 right to a healthy environment; the Tribunal is not a mere adjudicator of disputes brought before it and may act on letters, news reports and its own knowledge, subject to the limits of the Act and natural justice.
• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, 2019 INSC 434: in an appeal from the Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that the NGT must examine an environmental clearance on its merits, as a specialised body, and not merely defer to the appraisal committee.

8. Assessment

Strengths: speedy, specialised adjudication with experts on the bench; cheap access; statutory principles; power to award environmental restitution. Criticisms: vacancies and a small number of benches; the exclusion of the wildlife and Indian Forest Acts; uneven compliance with its orders; and concern that wide suo motu and monitoring orders take the Tribunal into administration. Its role has grown with the 2023 and 2024 amendments, which made it the appellate forum for the new civil penalty regime.

How this is examined

The NGT is usually asked as a short note or folded into questions on remedies and on the Water, Air and Environment (Protection) Acts. For a note, give the background, composition, s.14 with Schedule I, s.15, s.16, s.20 and Ankita Sinha. In any question on offences and penalties under the pollution statutes, add one line that appeals against the adjudicating officer go to the NGT.