Read Time: 13 minutes

The Supreme Court today ruled that the National Green Tribunal can take suo motu cognisance on environmental issues based on letter petitions and media reports under NGT Act, 2010.

A bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar was of the view that the NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. It said:

"The Parliament’s intention is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT’s fabric. The NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum, and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court."

The Top Court also held that it is vital for the wellbeing of the nation and its people, to have a flexible mechanism to address all issues pertaining to environmental damage and resultant climate change so that we can leave behind a better environmental legacy, for our children, and the generations thereafter.

"The hands-off mode for the NGT, when faced with exigencies requiring immediate and effective response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice," says the judgment.

The pleas in the instant batch of petitions sought directions on the suo motu jurisdiction of NGT. The matters related to an appeal was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenging an order passed by the NGT regarding waste disposal where the NGT had taken up the issue based on an article published in the quint and also NGT’s order reducing the minimum distance rule for quarries in Kerala, where the High Court of Kerala is said to have suo motu jurisdiction.

After hearing the matter for four days, the Court had reserved judgment on September 8.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, who was appointed as an amicus curiae in the case told the Top court that the NGT is incapable of triggering action on its own.

He submitted that the NGT cannot act suo motu without someone moving the Forum as otherwise the forum then would be perceived to be judging its own cause.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, submitted that although NGT does not have the power to take cognisance of a matter on its own, the tribunal’s powers cannot be bound by procedural constraints.

"This is a peculiar tribunal dealing with environmental matters. Often, environment ends up being nobody’s baby,” Bhati had said.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Dushyant Dave, Jaideep Gupta, Dhruv Mehta, Atmaram Nadkarni, Krishnan Venugopal, V. Giri,  Sajan Poovayya and  Sidhartha Dave, took a common stand. They argued that the NGT is a Tribunal and a creature of statute and as such, it cannot act on its own motion or exercise the power of judicial review or act suo motu, in discharge of its function. Being a creature of the statute, the forum cannot assume inherent powers as under Article 32 and Article 226 and its domain is circumscribed by the limitations so imposed, they submitted.

On the contrary, Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Sanjay Parikh, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, referred to the special role envisaged for the NGT and the history of its incorporation, making equally powerful submission in support of exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, by the NGT.

The top Court went through the contours of the jurisdiction of NGT and the statutory features of the NGT Act.

It was noted that the Supreme Court and High Courts can foray into any issues under their constitutional mandate but the NGT cannot naturally travel beyond its environmental domain in reference to the scheduled enactments. However,  the Court added that as long as the sphere of action is not breached, the NGT’s powers must be understood to be of the widest amplitude.

"...the NGT was conceived as a specialized forum not only as a like substitute for a civil court but more importantly to take over all the environment related cases from the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Many of those cases transferred to the NGT, emanated in the superior courts and it would be appropriate thus to assume that similar power to initiate suo motu proceedings should also be available with the NGT," said the Bench.

It was further found that NGT is a Tribunal with sui generis characteristic, with the special and all-encompassing jurisdiction to protect the environment. It was thus remarked that besides its adjudicatory role as an appellate authority, it is also conferred with the responsibility to discharge role of supervisory body and to decide substantial questions relating to the environment.

Relying on the provisions mentioned under Section 14(1) of the NGT Actn which deals with jurisdiction, the Court noted that the jurisdictional provision conspicuously omits to specify that an application is necessary to trigger the NGT into action.

"In situations where the three prerequisites of Section 14(1) i.e., Civil cases; involvement of substantial question of environment; and implementation of the enactments in Schedule I are satisfied, the jurisdiction and power of the NGT gets activated. On these material aspects, the NGT is not required to be triggered into action by an aggrieved or interested party alone."

It was further remarked that institutions which are often addressing urgent concerns gain little from procedural nitpicking, which are unwarranted in the face of both the statutory spirit and the evolving nature of environmental degradation. Not merely should a procedure exist but it must be meaningfully effective to address such concerns.

With this view, the Court has directed for delinking of all cases regarding the suo motu jurisdiction of NGT, for now being heard separately on merits.

Cause Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA SINHA & ORS.

Click here to access a copy of the Judgment.