2021 (10) TMI 527 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of National Green Tribunal (NGT) to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - HELD THAT - The NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. 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 environmental impacts on climate change are gaining increasing visibility in the shape of uncertain rains, species extinction, loss of natural habitat and so on. These also have the propensity to diminish fresh water resources, reduce agricultural yields and impact public health, particularly in the cities. The flooding and erosion in riverine and coastal areas are matters of serious concern - 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 NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns. Such a society centric approach must be allowed to work within the established safety valves of the principles of natural justice and appeal to the Supreme Court. 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. 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. The role of such an institution cannot be mechanical or ornamental. Registry may do the needful and post the matters on 25.10.2021 for direction and fixing date of hearing, before the Bench presided - For the purpose of further hearing, the respective cases shall not be treated as part-heard before this Bench.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suo Motu Jurisdiction of NGT:
The primary issue in this case is whether the NGT can exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The NGT took suo motu cognizance based on an article highlighting environmental mismanagement. This led to a series of legal arguments about the Tribunal's powers.

2. Arguments Against Suo Motu Power:
Senior Counsel argued that as a statutory tribunal, the NGT cannot act on its own motion or exercise judicial review power akin to superior courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. They cited various judgments, including Standard Chartered Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and Transcore Vs. Union of India, to emphasize that tribunals like NGT have limited powers and cannot assume inherent powers.

3. Arguments Supporting Suo Motu Power:
Contrary views were presented by other Senior Counsel who argued that the NGT, given its specialized role and the history of its incorporation, should have the power to act suo motu. They emphasized the NGT's broad jurisdiction and its role in addressing environmental issues, which necessitates proactive measures.

4. Role of Amicus Curiae:
Mr. Anand Grover, appointed as Amicus Curiae, acknowledged the NGT's wide jurisdiction but opined that the NGT should not act suo motu without an external trigger. However, he conceded that even a letter could empower the NGT to act.

5. Government's Stand:
The Additional Solicitor General argued that the NGT does not have suo motu power as it was not conferred under the NGT Act. However, she agreed that the NGT could act on receiving a letter, similar to the Amicus Curiae's view.

6. Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:
The judgment delved into various precedents and statutory interpretations. It highlighted that the NGT Act's provisions and the legislative intent behind its creation suggest a broad and proactive role for the NGT. The court referred to the Law Commission's 186th Report and the Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act, emphasizing the need for a specialized body to handle environmental issues effectively.

7. Purposive Interpretation:
The court adopted a purposive interpretation of the NGT Act, focusing on the legislative intent to create a multifunctional body capable of addressing environmental concerns comprehensively. The court cited principles from statutory interpretation treatises and past judgments to support this approach.

8. Non-Adjudicatory Roles of NGT:
The judgment highlighted the NGT's broader roles beyond adjudication, including preventive, remedial, and ameliorative functions. It emphasized that the NGT's mandate is not limited to resolving disputes but also includes taking proactive measures to protect the environment.

9. Unique Nature of NGT:
The court acknowledged the NGT's unique role compared to other tribunals, given its broad jurisdiction and the need to address complex environmental issues. It emphasized that the NGT should have the flexibility to act proactively, including exercising suo motu powers.

10. Environmental Justice and Equity:
The judgment discussed the concepts of environmental justice and equity, highlighting the disproportionate impact of environmental harm on marginalized communities. It stressed the need for the NGT to act proactively to address such concerns and ensure fair distribution of environmental protections.

11. Conclusion:
The court concluded that the NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction. It emphasized that the NGT must act proactively to address environmental issues and cannot remain a mute spectator. The judgment declared that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act.

12. Directions for Further Proceedings:
The court directed that the cases be delinked and heard separately on merits, with specific instructions for the registry to post the matters for further hearing.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the NGT Act, emphasizing the Tribunal's broad and proactive role in addressing environmental issues. The judgment highlighted the need for a purposive interpretation of the NGT Act to fulfill its legislative intent and ensure effective environmental protection.

← Previous Next →