TYPE OF CASE: Civil Appeal
JUDGES: A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
COURT: Supreme Court of India
FINAL DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 7th October 2021
LEGAL COUNSELS FOR APPELLANTS: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Dushyant Dave
LEGAL COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta
FACTS
- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) came upon a post on internet news portal The Quint titled “Garbage Gangs of Deonar: The Kingpins and Their Multi-Crore Trade.” Article described how the Deonar dump in Greater Mumbai handles solid garbage carelessly and unscientifically, thus impacting both the environment and the lives of those who live there.
- After reading the published report, the NGT, Principal Bench launched a suo moto investigation to determine whether the solid waste management practices at Greater Mumbai’s Deonar dump comply with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
- Notices were issued to State of Maharashtra, other relevant statutory entities, and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Additionally, Ms. Ankita Sinha, the reporter for the story, was directed to be an applicant in the present matter by an order.
- To look into the matter, the NGT formed a committee that included the MCGM, the district collector for the area, the Central Pollution Control Board, and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
- Following thorough examination of the Deonar dumping site, the committee published its report, which revealed that the landfill site had not complied with requirements of 2016 Solid Waste Management Rule. The NGT stated that the “damage to the environment and public health is self-evident.”
- NGT fined MCGM five crore rupees in interim compensation for failing to fulfil its statutory obligation of putting the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 into effect, based on the committee’s findings.
- Subsequently, the Supreme Court received an appeal from the MCGM challenging the NGT by declaring that the NGT lacks the authority of suo moto cognizance.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Is it possible for the NGT to carry out its duties under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 using suo moto jurisdiction?
2. Is it possible for NGT to act directly based on a letter or news report?
CONTENTIONS FROM THE SIDE OF APPELLANTS
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that suo moto cognizance is not expressly provided for. The learned counsel contended that NGT can’t act on its motion, or act on suo moto while performing its duties because it is a tribunal and a creation of a statute. He cited the cases of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath, and Chartered v. Dharmender Bhohi. The NGT “cannot assume inherent powers as mentioned under Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution,” he continued because it is a creation of statute.
Furthermore, the absence of the broad judicial review power in the NGT Act, of 2010 suggested that the legislature intended to limit the NGT’s ability to act on its initiative. Moreover, MCGM said that the NGT would be acting as a judge in its own case if it were granted suo moto powers, which goes against the fundamentals of natural justice. This is demonstrated by the fact that NGT Act, 2010 does not specifically address it, unlike the National Environment Tribunal, which was NGT’s predecessor and was explicitly granted the authority to take matters suo moto.
According to the experienced counsel, the NGT serves as an adjudicatory body. There must be two or more parties to the disagreement for the case to be heard under the NGT, it cannot act as one of the parties. He added that any legal dispute involving environmental issues may be heard by the NGT. The act’s Section 14 mentions this authority, but the suo moto powers are not included. Therefore, without movement, it cannot act as suo moto cognizance.
CONTENTIONS FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENTS
The learned counsel for the respondents highlighted the special role envisioned for NGT, referring to its history and incorporation to support exercise of suo moto jurisdiction.
He argued that NGT is a tribunal with a “Suo Generis Characteristic,” meaning it has unique authority to protect the environment. The NGT can decide significant environmental issues and act as a supervisory body.
He emphasized broad powers given to the NGT to address “substantial questions relating to the environment.” The Learned Counsel stated that NGT was created to uphold the right to a healthy environment, which is integral to right to life. Therefore, the tribunal’s primary mission should not be hindered by formal petitions or procedural requirements.
RATIONALE
Court examined the legislative purpose for creating the NGT as a specialized environmental court in the first section. By examining Preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons, and 186th Report of the Law Commission of India, it argued for wider interpretation of the NGT’s jurisdiction.
The NGT was established, the court said, with the primary goal of preventing environmental harm as soon as feasible. NGT ought to bring a case right away rather than waiting for someone else to realize that. The NGT’s primary goal, the prompt resolution of environmental concern cases, is not met by this process.
The Court further noted that the NGT was established to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The court clearly said in the Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar case that the right to live in a healthy environment is protected by Article 21 “Right to life.” Postponing the process will have an impact on people’s health. The NGT is obligated to protect Article 21 of the Constitution.
In the second section of the ruling, the court interpreted NGT Act, 2010, with a purposive approach to examine NGT’s jurisdiction and authority. The act, in its entirety, grants NGT significant powers beyond merely serving as an adjudicatory body. Among other functions, NGT has authority to address major environmental issues and compensate victims. The act provides “locus standi” with broad authority similar to that of a writ court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the NGT possesses “non-adjudicatory powers.”
The court outlined the boundaries and context of the NGT’s suo moto authority in the third section of the ruling. The NGT must be recognized by the courts as a sui generis body rather than merely an unus multorum, and it must have a unique and exclusive role in environmental issues with the general public.
The court also said that NGT was established to uphold the right to a healthy environment guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and to meet international commitments for effective judicial access to address environmental harm. Referring to an international commitment made under the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, court observed that an institution dedicated to Right to Life should receive a much more “liberal” interpretation of its jurisdiction. It emphasized that conserving environment, along with preventing harm to it, was the primary goal of the law’s enactment.
The Court noted that Parliament meant to give the NGT a broad range of authority and jurisdiction so that it could handle cases that the Supreme Court or High Courts were handling. As a result, it concluded that NGT ought to have the same authority to start suo moto proceedings.
One of the main points made by the legal representative contesting the NGT’s suo moto jurisdiction was that lack of judicial review authority inside NGT demonstrated a legislative intention to limit the agency’s authority. According to the Court, the lack of judicial review authority guaranteed that the High Courts wouldn’t interfere with the NGT’s orders before they became final.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- Ambiguity in the NGT Act 2010: the act does not explicitly grant NGT power to take suo moto cognizance of environment issues. The absence of clear statutory provision can lead to significant legal ambiguity.
- Undermining separation of powers: The court’s decision to interpret NGT’s powers broadly to include suo moto cognizance could be seen as a judicial overreach undermining the principle of separation of powers as the legislature is the one responsible for defining the scope and limits of NGT.
- Conflict in jurisdiction: The broad interpretation of NGT’s powers might lead to jurisdictional conflicts as NGT’s suo moto cognizance might overlap with the jurisdiction of other legal bodies leading to conflicts.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is a landmark decision that affirms the NGT authority to take suo moto cognizance of environmental issues. This judgment emphasizes the proactive role of the NGT in environmental protection, interpreting NGT Act, to grant tribunal broad powers necessary for addressing and mitigating environmental harm.
This ruling not only ends the ongoing opposition and appeals against suo moto initiations, but it also removes necessity for financial or other resources, particularly for the underprivileged segments of society, to obtain environmental justice. It gives the NGT more autonomy and security when using its suo moto authority to decide on an urgent matter.
This judgment reinforces the proactive role of the NGT in environmental protection.
The court has handed the reins to NGT. The Court has often stated that it intends to take proactive steps to protect the environmental rule of law and ensure that disadvantaged groups in society receive substantive justice. The creation of NGT itself reflects these goals, which have helped it win laurels around the world.
More significantly, by removing the necessity of initially approaching the forum, suo moto initiations will make it easier to obtain environmental justice. This is what every environmental court and tribunal in the world strives to accomplish. The NGT is now primarily responsible for determining the entire extent and reach of this authority.
But despite the ruling’s positive impact on enhancing environmental governance, it also exposes several legal ambiguities and potential defects which could be detrimental if not given due attention. This case sets a precedent for environmental jurisprudence in India, reinforcing the importance of a dynamic and robust legal framework to safeguard environmental rights, which are intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life.