National Green Tribunal - SC clarifies its powers

The National Green Tribunal is powerful, and suo motu powerful!

 National Green Tribunal - SC clarifies its powers

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• The story: The Supreme Court of India clarified the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) position as a “unique” forum endowed with suo motu (on its own motion) powers to take up environmental issues across India. It clarified that the role of the NGT is not simply adjudicatory in nature. The Tribunal has to perform equally vital roles that are preventative, ameliorative or remedial in nature.
• Details: The functional capacity of the NGT is intended to leverage wide powers to do full justice in its environmental mandate.

1. Article 21 rights cannot stand on a narrow compass of interpretation. Article 21 of the constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty.
2. NGT, as a complimentary, competent, specialised forum, to deal with all environmental multidisciplinary issues both as original and also as an appellate authority. It embodies the international obligation India owed to the environment.
3. The NGT has been recognised as one of the most progressive Tribunals in the world. This jurisprudential leap has allowed India to enter a rather exclusive group of nations which have set up such institutions with broad powers.

• National Green Tribunal: It is a specialised body set up under the National Green Tribunal Act (2010) for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. With its establishment, India became the third country in the world to set up a specialised environmental tribunal, only after Australia and New Zealand, and the first developing country to do so.

1. The NGT Act provided a specialized role to the tribunal to act on issues where a dispute arose under seven specified laws (mentioned in Schedule I of the Act): The Water Act, The Water Cess Act, The Forest Conservation Act, Air Act, Environment Protection Act, Public Liability Insurance Act and the Biological Diversity Act.
2. The NGT is mandated to make disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing the same.
3. The Tribunal is headed by the Chairperson who sits in the Principal Bench and has at least ten but not more than twenty judicial members and at least ten but not more than twenty expert members. Decisions of the Tribunal are binding. The Tribunal has powers to review its own decisions. If this fails, the decision can be challenged before the Supreme Court within ninety days.

• Challenges: In the last nine years, the NGT never got the minimum strength of ten judicial and ten expert members to address the increasing number of environmental litigations. There also are challenges in implementation of the NGT’s orders. The NGT Act specifies that the compensation amount as ordered by the tribunal should be remitted to the authority of the Environmental Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of order. It is seen that the polluters don’t abide by this rule. There is no institutional mechanism to ensure that the environmental regulatory authorities comply with the orders of the tribunal. The NGT orders are increasingly challenged in the Supreme Court, where a heavy penalty has been imposed by the tribunal.
• Landmark cases of NGT:

1. Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors. - "Even a Foreign National Can Approach the NGT". A complaint regarding various instances of illegal construction in the Coastal Regulation Zone of Candolim, Goa was made by a personal of foreign nationality, named Betta Alvarez. The Tribunal disagreed from taking a narrow view of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court laid down in very bold terms that once it is found that any person can file a proceeding related to the environmental dispute, Ms. Betty’s application is maintainable without regards to the question of her nationality.
2. Almitra H. Patel & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. - "Complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands". This case has been a landmark case dealing with the issue of solid waste management in India. Mrs. Almitra Patel and another had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court whereby the Petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in the practices that are presently adopted for the way Municipal Solid Waste or garbage is treated in India. The Tribunal after having evaluated every aspect of this problem issued over 25 directions. It directed every state and UT to implement the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 immediately and prepare an action plan in terms of the Rules within 4 weeks. It put a complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfills.
3. Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Alaknanda hydro Power Co. Ltd. & Ors. - "In this case no fault liability principle invoked". The petition raised several issues seeking directions to the first Respondent, Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. to compensate to the tune of INR 9,26,42,795 against the damage suffered by the members of the Petitioner Samiti in terms of life and property. The 2013 Uttarakhand floods which caused mass destruction of life and property is the backdrop of this case. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that damage to the property as alleged by the applicants was incurred as a result of flood water, which brought along soil and muck, entering residential premises. There was contribution of Phyllite, which is a product generated by digging of tunnel and canal and through power house excavation downstream the barrage in question. Thus, clear contribution of the project could be noticed. The Tribunal noted that although the 2013 Uttarakhand floods were the result of a cloud burst, the damage caused to the residential area was not the result of Act of God. The muck was about 30 percent, which clearly was the footprint of Respondent No.1’s involvement in the damage.
4. Samit Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors. - "‘Polluter Pays’ principle invoked". An environmentalist filed applications in relation to the damage caused to the sinking of a ship named M. V. Rak which was carrying huge amounts of coal, fuel oil and diesel. The Tribunal found that negligence could be attributed to Respondents 5, 6, 7 and 11 and elements of mens rea were to be found. The sinking of the ship was the result of the negligence of the Respondents and upholding the principle of Polluter Pays, the Tribunal directed Respondents 5, 7 and 11 to pay environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 100 crores to the Ministry of Shipping, GOI, which is one of the biggest compensation amounts ever paid by a private entity against environmental damage done.

• Summary: It is time to think of more autonomy, and to widen NGT’s scope for effective protection of the environment in balance with human developmental activities. The government needs to provide adequate financial and human resources — if it does not want the NGT to wither away. NGT offers a path for the evolution of environmental jurisprudence by setting up an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It helps reduce the burden of litigation in the higher courts on environmental matters.
• EXAM QUESTIONS: (1) Explain the scope for environmental legislation and jurisprudence in India, in light of the rapidly evolving dynamics of climate change. (2) What have been some of the landmark decisions by the NGT? List and explain.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

#Jurisprudence #NGT #EnvironmentalLaws

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.