TABLE OF CONTENT

S.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. Abstract 4

2. Introduction 5

3. Role Played by National Green Tribunal in Environmental Dispute 7

Resolution

4. Some Notable Orders 13

5. Major Judgements by NGT 15

6. Conclusion 17

7. References 18

1
ABSTRACT
During 2010 the Government of India created the National Green Tribunal (NGT), under the
NGT Act, 2010. NGT is a 'quasi-judicial' body concerned solely with civil cases related to the
environment. Two previous attempts to create green courts in India existed before NGT
developed. Those were the 1995 (META) National Environment Tribunal Act, and 1997
(NEAA) National Environment Appellate Authority Act. Nonetheless, in 2010, the most
powerful environment court in the form of NGT became a reality. NGT has resolved several
environmental concerns since its founding, and has received overwhelming response from
different corners. The Author in this assignment shall talk about the role played by the NGT
in environmental dispute resolution, about its objectives, procedure to filing of appeals, its
jurisdiction, powers and the relief offered by the Tribunal to resolve disputes. The author also
highlights some major orders and judgements passed by the NGT in order to address dispute
resolution concerning environment and then concluding with the lows and highs faced by the
Tribunal till date from its establishment.

Key Words: National Green Tribunal, NGT Act, Environment, Appeal, Relief.

2
INTRODUCTION
Improving the rule of law on the environment, access to justice and resolution of
environmental disputes is key to achieving the 2030 UN agenda for Sustainable Growth and
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG Goal 16 - ensuring access to
justice for all and building efficient, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. To
achieve this goal, it is becoming essential to set up specialized courts and tribunals which
deal exclusively with environmental matters. About 1200 environmental courts and tribunals
operate in various countries around the world, and more such courts are expected for the
future.

Several countries have developed separate Green Courts or Green Tribunal or Environmental
Court on a global scale to handle environmental litigation. Perhaps, India is the third country
to have a specialized environment court after Australia and New Zealand. India is one of the
pioneers in building a green court between developed countries. National Green Tribunal
(NGT) was created in India in 2010, pursuant to Article 21 1 of the Indian Constitution. This
particular article of Indian constitution guaranteed the protection of life and personal liberty
for its people. In the light of this fundamental right, the government has set up a new green
tribunal to deal exclusively with litigation related to the environment. The newly created
"Climate Tribunal" is a specific judicial structure in the sense that it is a special quasi-judicial
"fast-track" entity to ensure timely environmental justice. The Tribunal is composed of equal
numbers of judges and environmental experts to ensure that cases are disposed of efficiently.
It also has insurance clauses to be paid by the polluter for losses incurred to the parties
concerned.

In India, the need to create environmental tribunals in India emerged in different

circumstances and times. In cases involving M.C. Mehta v. Union of India2, Indian Council
for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India3 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Professor
M.V. Nayudu4, the Supreme Court of India noted that because environmental cases also
require the examination of scientific evidence, the establishment of environmental courts on a
regional basis with a legally trained judge and two experts will help speed up the judicial
process.

1
The Constitution of India.
2
AIR 1987 SC 965.
3
1996 3 SCC 212.
4
1992 2 SCC 718.

3
The Law Commission of India (186th Report 2003) recommended setting up environmental
tribunals in India. This recommendation was based on a review of the technical and scientific
issues that were brought before the courts and the inadequacy of judicial knowledge on the
scientific and technical aspects of environmental matters.5

The initial version of Indian Constitution did not contain environmental rights.
Environmental jurisprudence was also not recognized as Indian Judicial appellation. It is the
42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 which changed the landscape by incorporating
Articles 48-A and 51A(g) into the Indian Constitution.

Following the enactment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, after New Zealand and
Australia, India became the third country in the world which has separate fast-track courts
and quasi-judicial bodies dealing with environmental cases. The NGT was established to
dispose of civil cases relating to the protection of the environment and the conservation of
forests and other natural resources, including enforcement of any environmental laws.

5
Law Commission of India, “186th Report on Proposal to Constitute Environment Courts” 2 (September, 2003).

4
ROLE PLAYED BY NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL IN
ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

On 18 October 2010, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was set up under the National
Green Tribunal Act 2010. In 2009 Lok Sabha adopted the National Green Tribunal Bill. The
Bill replaces the former National Environmental Appellate Authority and has a wider reach
and coverage than NEAA does. This judicial body was designed to deal solely with the
environmental laws and have the right to the environment for people. It was initially decided
in the bill that the tribunal's main bench will be established in Bhopal along with four other
Benches circuit. And so now NGT's main bench is based in Delhi, India's national capital.
The remaining branches are situated in Bhopal, Chennai and Kolkata. The NGT has just
introduced its Pune Circuit Bench. Pune Bench will have authority over Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Goa and Daman & Diu. The establishment of courts in various parts of the world
serves as an example of the global ideals of environmental justice being applied at local level.

Composition

The NGT shall consist of a full-time Chairperson, assisted by not less than ten members, but
subject to a limit of twenty full-time members of the judiciary and of experts. 6 The
credentials of these judicial and expert representatives are elaborately set out in the Act. 7 As
regards their appointment, the Chairperson shall be appointed by the Central Government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of India, while the other members shall be appointed in
such manner as may be recommended on the basis of the recommendations of a Selection
Committee.8 Section 14 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of all civil
proceedings in which a significant environmental problem arises from the application of the
enactments set out in Schedule I to the Act. The Tribunal shall have appeal authority pursuant
against orders or decisions pursuant to the actions stated in Schedule I 9. Such appeal shall be
brought before the Tribunal within 30 days of the date on which the order, judgment or
judgment has been communicated to the party concerned.

6
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, s. 4.
7
Id., s. 5.
8
Id., s. 6.
9
Id., s. 16.

5
Objectives

The National Green Tribunal has three significant goals, they are:

1. The speedy and successful disposal of all environmental and other natural resource related
situations. The Tribunal will also rule on all previous pending proceedings.
2. The main aim is to legally enforce all the environmental rights.
3. This provides for ensuring redress and justice in the event of any harm to all the persons
affected.
Jurisdiction and Powers of NGT

The National Green Tribunal has the authority to hear all civil environmental cases dealing
with the compliance of all the laws specified in Schedule I of the Act. These are as followed:

 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
 The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
 The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
 The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
 The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

This means that any breach of these laws or any order issued by the government under these
laws which is improper may be challenged in the National Green Tribunal, and will be
determined there.

More notably, no authority has been granted to the National Green Tribunal to hear any cases
relating to the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, the Indian Forest Act of 1927 and various
laws enacted by States relating to forests, tree protection and various other legislation. The
National Green Tribunal has authority to determine all cases concerning serious
environmental and security concerns, and any legal rights relevant to them. As a
constitutional body, the tribunal not only exercises original control over filing an application,
but also has control over appeals by which it considers appeals as a tribunal. The tribunal is
not bound by the process referred to in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and it follows the
principles of natural justice when determining any matter. Until deciding any issue, the

6
tribunal shall consider all principles such as sustainable growth, polluter fees, and
precautionary principles.

Procedure for filing an Application or Appeal for Environmental Dispute Resolution

The National Green Tribunal has a basic process for filing an application seeking
compensation for harm to the environment. If the party is not happy with the ruling, it can
lodge an application against an appeal, an order or any government decision before the
tribunal.

If an application / appeal does not require a demand for compensation, a charge of Rs. 1000/-
is payable. Where compensation is sought, the fee shall be one per cent of the compensation
sum subject to a minimum of Rs. 1000/-

The National Green Tribunal will make the following provision by order:

1. Compensation and compensation for all people who are the victims of pollution and harm
to the environment, and it also involves injuries that occur when handling hazardous
substances.
2. Restitution of property that was destroyed
3. Restoration of environment for areas that the tribunal can consider fit.

In the case of Samir Mehta v. Union of India and Others10, the NGT ordered that an
environmental fee to be paid by the Respondent of concern for the harm done to the
ecosystem in compliance with the 'Polluter Pays Principle.'

In the case of Manoj Mishra v. Union of India and Others11, relating to the clean and
rejuvenated Yamuna River, Delhi, the NGT provided directions to the Delhi Civic and
Municipal Authorities to charge an environmental compensation fee for each household as
part of property/house tax. Similarly, in the case of Krishan Kant Singh v. National Ganga
River Basin Authority12, NGT ordered the defaulting industrial unit to pay the State Pollution
Control Board concerned a fee for Rupees Five Crores on the basis of the Polluter Pays
Principle for performing remedial activities to ensure the protection of rivers.

Suo moto Power

10
MANU/GT/0104/2016.
11
Original Application No. 6 of 2012.
12
 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2013.

7
The NGT takes suo moto appeals in several important environmental matters in the interest of
protection of the environment and public health. NGT's act of suo moto was challenged in the
Madras High Court, which disagreed with the tribunal's claim, i.e. the tribunal is allowed to
establish its own procedure, and it may take suo moto notice of an environmental matter.

There was a total of 11 suo moto appeals issued by the NGT in the year 2016. The Water
sector ranked first among them, and the two sectors of Industry Operations and Nature ranked
second and the sectors of Mining and Waste ranked sixth, with one appeal each. The suo
moto proceedings were initiated on a petition obtained from Sri. K.J. Poulose, Ernakulam, the
NGT issued guidelines to the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) for the prevention of
pollution by Industries on the Periyar River, and to take effective action in the event of a
breach, including the closure of the units, following proper legal procedure.

In one of the suo motu appeals, in the matter of Suo moto v. Government Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu 13,
the tribunal filed a complaint regarding poor quality of government tap water in Chennai City
and provided directions to the authorities concerned. From the above-mentioned evidence, we
can understand that the NGT is working successfully, and the NGT is seen as one of the
characteristics of active environmental courts and tribunals.

Appeal to Supreme Court

Any person grieved by any award, decision or order of the Tribunal may appeal to the
Supreme Court on any or more of the grounds set out in section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, within ninety days from the date of contact of the award, decision or order
of the Tribunal to him. It is provided that after the expiry of ninety days, the Supreme Court
can consider any appeal if it is satisfied that the appellant has been prevented from preferring
the appeal by a reasonable reason.14

Bars on Jurisdiction of Tribunal

It provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction from the date of establishment of the
Tribunal to entertain any appeal in respect of any matter which the Tribunal is allowed to
decide within its jurisdiction to appeal.15

13
Application No. 182 of 2013.
14
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, s. 22.
15
Id., s. 29(1).

8
It further provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or consider any matter
relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or recovery of damaged property
or environment which may be adjudicated by the Tribunal, and that no injunction shall be
issued by civil court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal.16

Relief, Compensation and Restitution

By order, the Tribunal may provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and
other environmental harm resulting from the enactments set out in Schedule I to the Act,
including accidents that occur while handling any hazardous material. This may also order
the recovery of the damaged property and the preservation of the environment for such areas
as the Tribunal may find fit.17

Who can file an Application for Relief, Compensation or Settlement of Dispute?

The NGT Act, 2010 provides18 that an application for relief or compensation or dispute
resolution may be made to the Tribunal by the person who suffered the injury, or by the
owner of the property to which the damage was caused, or by any or all legal representatives
of the deceased who died as a result of the damage caused to the environment, or by any
representative properly appointed by that person or owner of that property; or any person
concerned19, including any legislative body or organization; or any Central Government or
State or Union Territory Administration or Central Pollution Control Board or State Pollution
Control Board or Local Authority or Environmental Authority formed or constituted under
the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 or any other law that is in force can move the
tribunal as well.

It also ensures that the Tribunal must deal with the complaint and appeals as expeditiously as
possible. Endeavor shall dispose of the lawsuit, or, as the case may be, of the appeal,
eventually within six months of the date of its filing, after giving the parties concerned the
opportunity to be heard.20

Compensation and Relief can be claimed in the following circumstances21

(a) death;

16
Id., s. 29(2).
17
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, s. 15(1).
18
Id., s. 18(2).
19
J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578.
20
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, s. 18(3).
21
Id., schedule II.

9
(b) permanent, temporary, total or partial impairment or other accident or illness;

(c) loss of income due to complete, partial, permanent or temporary impairment;

(d) medical expenses incurred in the care of injury or illness;

(e) damage to private property

(f) expenses incurred by the Government or any local body in the provision of relief,
assistance and rehabilitation to the affected persons;

(g) Costs borne by the Government in respect of any administrative and legal action to deal
with any harm or damage, including compensation for environmental destruction and
restoration of environmental quality;

(h) loss to the Government or local authority arising from or connected to any operation that
causes any harm;

(i) claims for any harm whatsoever. Fauna damage or loss including mulch and excavated
animals and aquatic fauna;

(j) claim for any damages. Vegetation damage or loss including aquatic vegetation, trees,
fruits, tresses, and orchards;

(k) Claim covering costs of rehabilitation for any harm or damage to the environment,
covering soil, air, water, land and eco-system pollution;

(l) loss and degradation of any property other than private property;

(m) loss of business or jobs or both; and

(n) any other allegation arising from or related to any operation involving the handling of
hazardous substances.

10
SOME NOTABLE ORDERS

1. Stoppage of rat-hole mining in Meghalaya

All Dimasa Students Union and Dima Hasao District has sent an application to the Principle
Bench of the National Green Tribunal at New Delhi which was later admitted by them.
Committee on the issue of illegal rat-hole mining in the State and directed the Chief
Secretary, Government of Meghalaya and the Director-General of Police, State of Meghalaya
to ensure that rat-hole mining / illegal mining is stopped immediately by the State of
Meghalaya and that any illegal coal transport is not carried out until further orders have been
given by this Court. The Director-General of Police, Meghalaya State was also directed to
report to this Tribunal on compliance with the order by the next hearing date.22

2. Yamuna Conservation Zone

On 25 April 2014, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) said the proposed recreational
facilities on the river would impact Yamuna's safety. The NGT also proposed declaring a 52
km to the Government. Yamuna stretch in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as protected area.

3. Coal Blocks in Chhattisgarh Forests

The National Green Tribunal cancelled the clearance given to the Parsa East and Kante-
Basan captive coal blocks in the Chhattisgarh Hasdeo-Arand forests by then Union
Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh, overruling the statutory forest advisory
committee. The coal blocks requiring 1,989 hectares of forestland fell in an area originally
prohibited by the government as it was considered a patch of precious forest and demarcated
as a no-go zone. The order is expected to have a more far-reaching impact, with the tribunal
maintaining that "the mere expression of fanciful reasons relating to environmental issues
without any justification, empirical research or past experience does not make FAC's advice
an inconsistent body of expert.

4. Vehicular Air Pollution due to Diesel Vehicles in Delhi and NCR

All Dimasa Students Union and Dima Hasao Dist. Committee v. State of Meghalaya &Ors. (Original
22

Application No. 73/2014 and M.A. No. 174/2014).

11
As regards pollution control, when the air quality in Delhi began to deteriorate in early
November, resulting in what was eventually called an environmental emergency, the position
of the NGT was crucial in restoring normalcy. The NGT sponsored the phased deregistration
of 15-year-old diesel vehicles in Delhi, imposed strict rules on incineration plants, formed a
committee to inspect gas stations, and even pioneered a ban on disposable plastics, effective
from January 2017. It also set a significant precedent by banning building activities in the
peak stages of this emergency and was obviously of the view that economic failures cannot
be an excuse to neglect wide-ranging environmental problems.23

Ganga Rejuvenation

In July 2017, the tribunal passed a slew of directions to rejuvenate the Ganga, declaring an
area 100 meters from the edge of the Haridwar-Unnao stretch to be a 'no-development zone'
and prohibiting dumping of waste within 500 metres.

23
Padmapriya Govindarajan, How India's National Green Tribunal Upheld Environmental Protections in 2016,
available at: http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/how-indias-national-green-tribunal-upheldenvironmental-
protections-in-2016/ (last visited on April 20, 2020).

12
MAJOR JUDGEMENTS BY NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

In Subash Kumar v. Bihar State24, the right to a healthy environment was recognized as a
right as a first step. It was then included in the ever-growing 'right to life' setting. It then
expanded the definition of the right to environment within the right to life to include the right
to clean water25, clean air26, etc. The recognition of these rights coincided with the growth of
litigation in the public interest and the relaxing of the locus standi principle, which resulted in
an increase in litigation volume. Courts were more comfortable in the way environmental
issues were handled and treated.

In Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment and Forests 27, a case in which a forest clearance
given to a hydroelectric power project was challenged, the respondents sought a narrow
concept of "individual aggrieved" under Section 16 of the NGT Act, arguing that the
environmental community that initiated the litigation was not affected by the project as none
of them resided in the project area. However, the NGT held that a "person aggrieved" under
Section 16 does not mean a person who is harmed or affected by the Scheme, directly or
indirectly, but involves any person without mala fide intent. The NGT drew a distinction
between Section 18 and Section 16 and held that while an injured person may seek relief
under Section 18, any person may approach the NGT under Section 16.

In Dileep B. Nevatia v. Union of India & Ors28, the main question emerged as to the
violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Regulations, 2000 by vehicles using
multi-tone horns and sirens, made under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986. In this case it was also noted that no regulation is specified for the use of horns and
sirens in ambulances and police vehicles as well. In that order, it was directed to the Ministry
of Road Transport & Highways to inform the requirements for sirens and multi-tone horns
used by different vehicles under government duty or otherwise.

In Pathankot Welfare Association v. State of Punjab29, where NGT dealt with the model
solid waste action plan by declaring it as general law.

24
AIR 1991 SC 420.
25
Susheta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 6 SCC 563.
26
Murli Deora v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 765.
27
Appeal No. 5 of 2011.
28
Appeal No. 2 of 2014.
29
Appeal No. 3 of 2014.

13
In Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India30, the court took note of the rising rates of
pollution in Delhi. It instructed a committee to prepare an action plan and, in the meantime,
directed that vehicles over the age of 15 should not be allowed to ply or park on the roads;
that burning plastics and other similar materials should be prohibited; that a web portal and a
special task force should be created; that adequate space should be left on all market roads in
Delhi for two-way transport; that cycle tracks should be constructed; also that air purifiers
and automatic censors in appropriate places be installed. It ordered, in further orders at the
next hearing, that a fine of Rs. 1000 be imposed on all cars parked on metalled roads and that
multi-level parking be built in suitable areas.

An environmentalist filed an application in Samir Mehta v. Union of India and Ors31.

concerning the harm caused by the sinking of a ship carrying coal, fuel oil and diesel. A thick
oil layer was formed on the sea surface as a result of the sinking which caused damage to the
marine environment. The tribunal was of the view that negligence could be applied to some
of the respondents and that they had not followed the rules of pre-voyage. In this case the
principle of 'polluter pays' has been invoked.

In Sai Prasad Mangesh Kalyankar v. Regional Transport Officer, the application is

allegedly filed pursuant to Sections 14, 15 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
alleging that forest land is being used for tree-felling, illegal mining and environmental
degradation in the state, especially as a result of the Banda check post modernisation project.
The Tribunal dismisses the application for lack of evidence, but it has given required
instructions for preventing illegal mining and tree felling and for government officials to be
held responsible for inaction. The tribunal also directed compensatory forestation of 44,000
trees (1:8) in the said region and directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as
tentative cost for such forestation program to be executed through Agricultural University,
Dapoli. The tribunal has made it clear that failure to comply with these instructions will
trigger section 26 of the 2010 NGT Act.

CONCLUSION
30
Original Application No. 21 of 2014.
31
MANU/GT/0104/2016.

14
The National Green Tribunal was formed to provide efficient and expeditious dismissal of
environmental protection cases and to provide efficient access to judicial and administrative
proceedings, including remedies and remedy, as well as to create national laws on liability
and compensation for pollution victims and other environmental harm. The timely disposal of
cases is a major issue facing the Indian judicial system. When it comes to environmental
problems the question is even more pronounced.

Over the past seven years, the position of the NGT has been very progressive towards
protecting the environment, especially as regards the rights of marginalized people. The NGT
has come down strongly not only against the major corporate behemoths but also against the
central and state governments. As regards pollution control, when the air quality in Delhi
began to deteriorate in early November, resulting in what was eventually called an
environmental emergency, the position of the NGT was crucial in restoring normalcy. The
NGT also set an significant example by banning building activity in the peak stages of this
emergency and stating explicitly that economic difficulties should not be an excuse to neglect
large environmental concerns. In another recent judgment, the NGT had found it illegal to
employ retired bureaucrats' services as chairs of legislative expert assessment committees
evaluating environmental clearance projects. In enforcing the Western Ghats reports banning
polluting industries in the hill reaches of biodiversity-rich areas it had also forced the
government's hand earlier. However, a study conducted by the Delhi Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE) on the status of cases filed by state pollution control boards found that as
many as 96%, 76% and 55% of cases filed by Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Karnataka boards
were pending in the lower courts.

REFERENCES

15
STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India.

2. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

BOOKS

1. Dr. N. V. Pranjape, Environmental Laws and Management in India, (Thomson Reuters,

Delhi).
2. Sumeet Malik, Environmental Law, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow).
3. Indrajit Dube, Environmental Jurisprudence-Polluter’s Liability, (LexisNexis India,
Gurgaon).
WEBSITES

1. Indian Kanoon, http://www.indiankanoon.org.

2. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
3. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
4. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

16