Environmental Law Final Project

On

N.G.T. Act, 2010

By-

Rushabh Gurav (15010323043)

3rd year, BA LLB, Div. – A

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Symbiosis International University, Pune

C E R T IF IC AT E

The Project entitled “N.G.T. Act, 2010” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School,
Hyderabad for Environmental Law as part of final project assessment is based
on my original work carried out under the guidance of Prof. Sanu Rani Paul
from August 2017 to September 2017. The research work has not been submitted
elsewhere for award of any degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been
duly acknowledged.
I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidates

Date:

Page | 2
Acknowledgement

Initially, I wish to thank my respected Prof. Sanu Rani Paul for giving me the
opportunity of doing research on the topic N.G.T. Act, 2010. I express my sincere
gratitude to her for her valued guidance and support during the consultation and
throughout the completion of this project.

Page | 3
Index –

Sr. No. Description Page No.

1 Abstract 05

2 Introduction 06

3 Analysis of NGT Act, 07

2010
3 Conclusion 21

4 Bibliography 22

Page | 4
ABSTRACT:

Access to environmental justice is the first step to the achievement of environmental justice
goals by articulating in the language of equity the assurance of legal standing for all affected
and interested parties; the right of appeal or review; specialised environmental courts and other
practical dispute resolution mechanisms. In this context, India's commitment to the newly
formed National Green Tribunal (NGT) assumes a significant practical importance. In seeking
a balanced judicial forum to advance green jurisprudence, the NGT is a ‘fast track’ court having
wide powers, staffed by judges and environmental scientific experts. Section 20 of the National
Green Tribunal Act 2010 mandates the application of the principles underpinning international
environmental law, namely, sustainable development, precautionary and ‘polluter pays’
principles. This article addresses the application of these principles in the Indian context,
thereby recognising its international commitments concerning environmental protection.

Page | 5
INTRODUCTION

Background:

Most conservationists would have heard of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and some may
have already filed applications before it. This short primer explains how, when and where to
approach the NGT, and looks at the fundamental difference between courts and tribunals, and
the structure and jurisdiction of the NGT.

The NGT was established on October 18, 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010,
passed by the Central Government. The stated objective of the Central Government was to
provide a specialized forum for effective and speedy disposal of cases pertaining to
environment protection, conservation of forests and for seeking compensation for damages
caused to people or property due to violation of environmental laws or conditions specified
while granting permissions.

It has been established for the effective and expeditious disposal of the cases relating to the
environmental protection and the conservation of forests and other natural resources including
the enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation
for the damages to persons and property and for matters connected there with or incidental
thereto.

Page | 6
OBJECTIVE-

The need to set up special environmental courts was highlighted by the Supreme Court of
India in a series of judgments, the first one being in 1986 in the Oleum Gas Leak case 1,
and by the Law Commission of India in its 186 th report in 2003. The Court was of the
opinion that environmental cases raised issues, which required technical knowledge and
expertise, speedy disposal, and continuous monitoring, and therefore these cases should
decided by special courts with necessary expertise and technical assistance.

The Parliament passed the National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995 but it was never
implemented. Subsequently, the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997
was enacted under which the National Environment Appellate Authority was set up. There
were several problems in the functioning of the Authority, including its limited mandate
and key vacancies that the government did not fill. The Authority functioned till October
2010 and was replaced by the National Green Tribunal.

The National Green Tribunal was set up under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
(NGT Act). The objective of the NGT Act is to provide effective and expeditious disposal
of cases relating to the protection of the environment. Even though the Act came into
force on 2 June 2010, the first hearing of the Tribunal was held only in May 2011. The
Tribunal suffered from serious ‘teething troubles’. Despite being a body constituted by
an Act of Parliament, the Supreme Court had to intervene to ensure necessary
administrative arrangements were made by various branches of the government for the
Tribunal to become functional.

1
M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986: 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819

Page | 7
STRUCTURE OF NGT:

Following the enactment of the said law, the Principal Bench of the NGT has been
established in the National Capital – New Delhi, with regional benches in Pune (Western
Zone Bench), Bhopal (Central Zone Bench), Chennai (Southern Bench) and Kolkata
(Eastern Bench). Each Bench has a specified geographical jurisdiction covering several
States in a region. There is also a mechanism for circuit benches. For example, the
Southern Zone bench, which is based in Chennai, can decide to have sittings in other
places like Bangalore or Hyderabad.

The Chairperson of the NGT is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Head Quarter ed in
Delhi. Other Judicial members are retired Judges of High Courts. Each bench of the NGT
will comprise of at least one Judicial Member and one Expert Member. Expert members
should have a professional qualification and a minimum of 15 years’ experience in the
field of environment/forest conservation and related subjects.

Term Of Office

The Chairperson, Judicial and Expert Member are appointed for a period of five years.
The Chairperson and Judicial Member, if a judge of Supreme Court, shall not hold office
after the age of 70 years. In case of High Court they shall not hold office after 67 years
of age. The Expert Members can hold office only till 65 years.

POWERS OF NGT:

Under Section 19 of the Act, NGT has been empowered to hear all the civil matters related
to environment. Significantly, the NGT is not bound by the procedures of the C ode of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and is bound by the principles of natural justice. 2 While deciding
a case, the NGT should apply the principles of Sustainable Development, the
precautionary principle and polluter pays principle. 3 In furtherance of its duties, the NGT
has furthered the crusade of environment protection basis the doctrine of Sustainable
Development. The NGT in the case of Prafulla Samantray vs. Union of India 4 (POSCO
Case), ordered suspension of the establishment of the POSCO steel plant in Odisha, as in

2
Section 19(1), The NGT Act,2010
3
Section 20, The NGT Act,2010
4
Appeal No. 8 of 2011, NGT

Page | 8
the opinion of the NGT, though there is a need for industrial development, and
employment opportunities created by projects such as Posco's steel plant, but at the very
same time such development should be within the parameters of environmental concerns
and should satisfy the principles of sustainable development. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the
case of Sarang Yadhwakar and others vs. The Commissioner5, held, "the principle of
sustainable development takes within its ambit the application of the 'principle of
proportionality' and the 'precautionary principle'. In other words, one must, while
permitting development, not only ensure that no substantial damage is caused to the
environment but also take such preventive measures, which would ensure no irretrievable
damage to the environment even in future on the premise on intergenerational equity". 6

Even though the Tribunal has time and again stoutly applied the doctrine of Sustainable
Development and valued the local population over economic benefits from a project, the
NGT has also passed judgments in favour of industries when the economic development
surpasses the environmental costs. The NGT in various cases has held in favour of project/
industries where an industry/project has taken adequate preventive steps, mitigatory
measures and are armed with detailed Environment Management Plan backed by
scientific studies. In Sterlite Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board and ors., 7 the NGT while giving certain directions held in favour of the industry
and stated, "The environmental restrictions must operate with all their rigour but no action
should be suspicion-based which itself is not well-founded. Precautionary principle
should be invoked when the reasonable scientific data suggests that without taking
appropriate preventive measures there is a plausible indication of some environmental
injury or health hazard."

The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues and
questions that are linked to the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT
Act. These include the following:

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

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

5
Appeal No. 2 of 2013, NGT
6
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/559702/Clean+Air+Pollution/Need+For+Sustainable+Development
7
Appeal No. 57 and 58 of 2013, NGT

Page | 9
3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

This means that any violations pertaining only to these laws, or any order / decision taken
by the Government under these laws can be challenged before the NGT. Importantly, the
NGT has not been vested with powers to hear any matter relating to the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and various laws enacted by States
relating to forests, tree preservation etc. Therefore, specific and substantial issues related
to these laws cannot be raised before the NGT. You will have to approach the State High
Court or the Supreme Court through a Writ Petition (PIL) or file an Original Suit before
an appropriate Civil Judge of the taluk where the project that you intend to challenge is
located.

Appellate Jurisdiction

 Appeal may be preferred before NGT against:

 Order of Appellate Authority u/s 28 of Water Act,1974
 Order of State Govt. u/s 29 of Water Act,1974
 Directions by the SPCBs u/s 33A of Water Act,1974
 Decision of Appellate Authority u/s 13 of Water Cess Act,1977
 Order of State Govt. u/s 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
 Order of Appellate Authority u/s 31 of Air Act,1981
 Directions u/s 5 of Environment (P) Act,1986
 Grant or Refusal of Environmental Clearance Under Environment (P) Act, 1986
 Order or determination of benefit sharing, made by National Biodiversity
Authority State Biodiversity Board, under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002

Page | 10
FUNCTIONS OF NGT-

The members of the Tribunal are a mix of persons with a legal/judicial background and
those with knowledge and expertise in environmental issues or with administrative
experience. There is a principal bench of the Tribunal in New Delhi and four regional
benches in Bhopal, Kolkata, Pune and Chennai. These are ‘co-equal benches’ i.e. the
principal bench is not ‘higher’ in a judicial hierarchy than the other benches. Each bench
has a specified geographical jurisdiction. For instance, cases arising from Kerala, Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry, and Lakshadweep have to be filed in the
Southern bench in Chennai. Occasionally ‘circuit benches’ are also constituted. These are
specially constituted benches, which visit a particular city for a few days to hear cases
relating to that state.

The Tribunal has original (to be the first judicial forum to hear a case) and appellate
(review a regulatory authority's decision) jurisdiction with regard to the implementation
of seven environmental laws. These are 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, and the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The notable exception is the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 which is not included. A significant number of cases that may arise under the
Wildlife (Protection) Act are criminal cases–and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over
criminal cases.

The Tribunal has original jurisdiction over all civil cases raising a substantial question
relating to environment and which arise out of the implementation of the seven laws. This
makes the Tribunal a crucial avenue for grievance redressal for persons who wish to
highlight environmental issues which have serious implications but are not linked to a
single government decision.

For instance, cases relating to the widespread pollution in the River Ganga and Yamuna,
increasing air pollution in the National Capital Region, and illegal mining activities in
different parts of the country have all been brought before the Tribunal under its original
jurisdiction.

Page | 11
While exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal decides cases in which a
regulatory approval or consent granted (or rejected) by the relevant government agency
is being challenged. These approvals or consents are those issued under the seven laws.
For example, environmental clearances under the EIA Notification 2006, forest
clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, and consents issued by the State Pollution
Control Boards under the Water Act and the Air Act are included.

Who can approach the NGT?

According to the NGT Act, an aggrieved person can file a case before the Tribunal, and
could be an individual, a company, a firm, an association of persons (like an NGO), even
if not registered or incorporated, a trustee, a local authority (like a municipal corporation),
or a government body (like the State Pollution Control Board). The person need not be
directly affected by the project or development in question, but could be any person who
is interested in protecting and preserving the environment. There is a time period within
which the case has to be brought before the Tribunal, which varies according to the type
of case.

Application shall be made by –

 The person who has sustained the injury

 The owner of the property to which the damage has been caused
 Where death has been caused from the environmental damage, the legal
representatives of the deceased.
 Any agent
 Any person aggrieved including any representative body or organization
 The central government or the state govt.

What kind of decisions can the NGT deliver, and what is the timeline?

The Tribunal has the power to cancel an approval or consent granted. It can also issue a
stop work notice or an interim stay order. It can direct the constitution of a committee of
experts to carry out fact finding or monitor the implementation of its orders; and direct
concerned government agencies to take affirmative action to prevent or mitigate

Page | 12
environmental damage. It can also direct the demolition of unauthorized construction.
The Tribunal also has jurisdiction to order payment of compensation to victims of
environmental damage or an environmental restoration fine to a government agency for
restitution of damaged environment.

The NGT Act requires the Tribunal to hear cases as expeditiously as possible and
endeavour to decide the case within six months from the date on which the case is filed.
Despite this indicative timeline, it often takes longer as all parties have to be heard and
allowed to present necessary evidence, and sometimes, the Tribunal initiates special
investigations into facts, which may take up additional time.

Procedure for filing an Application or Appeal

The NGT follows a very simple procedure to file an application seeking compensation
for environmental damage or an appeal against an order or decision of the Government.
The official language of the NGT is English. Click here for the prescribed template for
filing an Application/Appeal before the NGT.

For every application / appeal where no claim for compensation is involved, a fee of Rs.
1000/- is to be paid. In case where compensation is being claimed, the fee will be one
percent of the amount of compensation subject to a minimum of Rs. 1000/ -.

A claim for Compensation can be made for:

1. Relief/compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental

damage including accidents involving hazardous substances;
2. Restitution of property damaged;
3. Restitution of the environment for such areas as determined by the NGT.

No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or

environment shall be entertained unless it is made within a period of five years from the
date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose.

Page | 13
Principles of Justice adopted by NGT

The NGT is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. Further, NGT is also not bound
by the rules of evidence as enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, it will be
relatively easier (as opposed to approaching a court) for conservation groups to present
facts and issues before the NGT, including pointing out technical flaws in a project, or
proposing alternatives that could minimize environmental damage but which have not
been considered. 8

While passing Orders/decisions/awards, the NGT will apply the principles of sustainable
development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principles.

However, it must be noted that if the NGT holds that a claim is false, it can impose costs
including lost benefits due to any interim injunction.

Several notable cases where the NGT has been involved are enumerated
here as under:

The Posco Case: 9 It is one of the most important cases in NGT’s history. In 2012, the
NGT ordered suspension of the establishment of the Rs 51000 crore, 12 MTPA capacity
Pocso steel plant in Odisha. However, after a series of arbitrations the environment
clearance (EC) was extended by the EC till 2014 with select modifications. In a recent
development, the company has showed lack of interest in going ahead with the project as
the ECgranted is due for expiry in 2017 and POSCO is unlikely to complete the project
by then. The project has faced a lot of outburst from local bodies and environmentalists
leading to dismal fate of the project since last decade. The entire course of events comes
in as a radical step in favour of the local communities and forests. It is worth mentio ning
that the Tribunal stood its ground to support sustainable development and valued local
communities above economic profit from the project.

8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269462421_The_National_Green_Tribunal_of_India_A_Sustainable
_Future_through_the_Principles_of_International_Environmental_Law [accessed Sep 26, 2017].
9
Prafulla Samantray Vs Union of India and Others APPLICATION NO. 8/2011

Page | 14
The Delhi Okhla Bird Sanctuary: 10 NGT in 2013 stopped the Noida Authority from
giving completion certificates to projects of about 45 developers nearing completion and
involving ~ 50000 flat owners. The reason cited was that the projects were within the 10 -
km radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ).

The 10-km radius was based on a directive issued by the National Board for Wildlife
(NBW) in 2005. After a series of appeals and discussions there was a set of new draft
notification, by the UP Government stating that the ESZ will range from 1.27 km on the
northern boundary of the sanctuary till the DND flyway and 100 meters on the others.
This came in as a cheer for the thousands of buyers and even the developers lifting the
projects from their limbo state since NGT’s orders.

The Goa foundation case: 11 It was a landmark case that established NGT’s jurisdiction
in all civil cases which involve a substantial question of environment. It was held that a
petition seeking of ecology of the Western Ghats by itself would be maintainable and it
was legal for the applicant to approach the NGT and pray for relief within the NGT Act.
Consequent to which, the Tribunal held that “Western Ghats require protection and there
is a statutory obligation upon the State to protect the environment and ecology of these
Western Ghats and to ensure that they are not degraded so as to harm the public and
environment at large”.

The Sand Mining Order: 12 This was another victory by the NGT wherein the Tribunal
had mandated a ban on all forms of Illegal River and Ocean bed sand mining which were
prevalent in the country due to the sand mafia’s influence over the sand market. The
Tribunal also called upon state authorities to show cause why ‘illegal sand mining had
been going on without any environment clearances’. The case received severe backlash
from states against the ban calling it ‘judicial over reach’ and it also led to increased black
marketing of sand. On the similar river bed protection lines, the NGT had on 25Th April,
2014 expressed concerns over the health of Yamuna River and the recreational facilities
on the river. The NGT had hence recommended the Government to declare a 52 km
stretch of the Yamuna in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as a conservation zone.

10
Amit Kumar V/s U.O.I. & Ors.: Application No. 158/2013
11
Goa Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors: Application no. 26 of 2012
12
Tapan Das Vs Director, Directorate of Mines Minerals & Others dated 08/05/2017

Page | 15
The recent Art of Living Cultural Festival on the bank of the river Yamuna had also made
headlines in the country. The NGT didn’t prohibit the ‘World Culture Festival’ but
slapped a fine of Rs. 5.0 crore on Art of Living Foundation for damaging biodiversity of
the ecologically sensitive Yamuna floodplains.

Ban on decade old Diesel vehicles at Delhi NCR: In a bid to minimize air pollution in
Delhi and the NCR region, the ordered prohibition of registration of new diesel vehicles
in Delhi till the time of the next hearing. The order also directed Delhi government not
registering diesel vehicles altogether in Delhi and also directed them to stop buying diesel
vehicles for their own departments. In addition, there was a stating that the vehicles
having served a life of more than 10 years would have no re-registration.

Sunil Kumar Chugh v. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New

Delhi:13

On September 3 this year, the principal bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) at
New Delhi passed a landmark judgment that, for the first time, brought important
principles of town planning within the scope and jurisdiction of the NGT. In its judgment
in the matter of Sunil Kumar Chugh v. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
New Delhi, Appeal No. 66 of 2014, the NGT held that open spaces, recreational grounds
and adequate parking facilities in buildings had an important bearing on the right to life
of people.

The appellants, Sunil Kumar Chugh and Ravinder Khosla, were residents of the slum
redevelopment project being carried on by the developer, M/s Priyali Builders at Antop
Hill, Mumbai. They filed an appeal challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) issued
to the developer on March 25, 2014 as illegal and prayed that the same be quashed.

In their appeal, the appellants stated that the builder had violated the Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 by starting construction without EC, way back in
2009. For five years, the developer continued construction without EC. The State
Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of Maharashtra ignored this
blatant violation and blindly granted EC to the builder.

It was further averred by the appellants that the developer did not provide any recreation
ground to the residents. Further, he did not provide any parking spaces for the residents

13
Sunil Kumar Chugh v. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, Appeal No. 66 of 2014

Page | 16
of the rehabilitation tenements, as a result of which, they were forced to park on the str eet.
This severely prejudiced their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The case was heard by the principal bench at New Delhi, comprising Justices Swatanter
Kumar and U D Salvi, along with expert members D K Agrawal and M A Yusuf. In its
judgment, the bench held that the developer had violated the EIA Notification, 2006 and
the Environment Protection Act, 1986 by commencing construction without prior EC.
Further, by not providing adequate recreation grounds, the developer had sever ely
prejudiced the right to life of the appellants. Consequently, the bench held the developer
liable for violating the law and imposed a fine of Rs. 3 crore to be paid into the
environmental relief fund maintained under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Further, taking note of the fact that the developer had provided deficient recreation
grounds to the residents, the court directed that a further sum of Rs. 32, 63,600 be paid to
the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for the deficient recre ational area in
the building. The approved plan of the building was quashed and the builder was directed
to submit a fresh plan that would contain adequate parking for all residents of the building
and address the shortfalls.

During the court proceedings, the developer had claimed that prior EC was not required
as the “FSI Area” (Floor Space Index or Floor Area Ratio) of the project was less than
20,000 square metres, the prescribed statutory limit. He claimed that the lift lobby and
staircase area were exempt from the computation of built-up area under the EIA
Notification. The NGT strongly rejected this argument, stating that the term “built -up
area” includes the entire construction area, saleable and non-saleable. It further held that
the 2011 amendment to the EIA Notification that clarified the term “built-up area” was
clarificatory in nature and would have a retrospective effect from 2006 itself.

The booming construction industry in Mumbai has resulted in repeated violations of

environmental norms that severely prejudice the right to life of the residents. Innumerable
projects commence construction without prior EC. Ex-post-facto clearances have been
granted arbitrarily, without imposing any penalty on the developer. The landmark
judgment of the NGT in the case of Sunil Kumar Chugh v. Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi & Others (Appeal No. 66 of 2014) will set a strong precedent in
penalising violators and quashing the illegal permissions granted to them. Further,
builders will not be able to segregate FSI areas from non-FSI areas and pass off the same

Page | 17
as built-up area. This ruling is indeed an important step forward in the effort to save
India’s cities from the degrading effects of illegal construction and haphazard
urbanisation, which have so far continued unabated.

The might of the NGT can be assessed through the recent development wherein the
Supreme Court supported the NGT’s stand mandating builders to obtain all the necessary
approvals for their projects before the commencement of the construction work. The NGT
had in July 2015 struck down an environment ministry memo permitting post facto
approvals. Such a mandate by the court will affect all builders big and small and prevent
them from constructing and selling illegal projects to innocent buyers and then washing
their hands off them.

There is a very fine line between the orders passed by the NGT and that of the Supreme
Court and NGT has succeeded in bridging the gap between a Tribunal and the Apex Court.
The Judgements are focused on three principles of Environment legislation – Polluter
Pays, Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development.

Page | 18
DRAWBACKS

1. Slow in activating the NGT, 2010:

For all its visible activism, itis not clear why the Union Government Ministry has
remained slow in activating the NGT which came into being in Oct 2010. No rules also
have been framed yet under the Act.

2. It is more about the compensation for the damages rather than the prevention of
damages:

the tribunal lacks the power to quash the environmental clearances. The Act fails to
provide for the precautionary measures that must be taken to ensure that the
environmental damage does not occur. The focus is more on the compensation for
damages more than the prevention of it in the first place.

3. Principle Bench at Bhopal:

The affected people will be forced to come to Bhopal. With no High Court at Bhopal,
very limited legal assistance will be available to complainants. This will be of no problem
for the corporate who of course have unlimited resources to ferry lawyers to Bhopal
several times, but what about those with a grievance and no financial ability. The Act
fails to work for the public.

4. Limited the period of accountability:

This is regressive at best and Machiavellian at worst given that many of the most serious
diseases caused by the environmental contamination including the Cancer, or lead
poisoning would only show up years later. The time period of six months for filing an
application for adjudication of disputes is so less of a time.

5. It would be infinitely better for the Tribunal's expert members to be of technical and
scientific background:

The maximum number of members in the tribunal definitely need not be 20, which is a
large number indeed. More than the administrative experience, what is required is the

Page | 19
experience and knowledge in Science, Public Health and Environmental Studies. This
would bring forth real experts

Even though it is not a perfect act, it is a good act.

A ‘substantial’ question relating to environment could be interpreted in various ways.

The tribunal would have benches only at five locations initially and this would significantly
reduce the access to justice, as civil courts would not deal with such cases anymore.

The bill did not provide the tribunal the power to deal with some laws related to environment,
which ruined the whole point of having such a body.

Particular method of selecting members of the Tribunal was not explained in the bill.

The bill does not provide any information on the minimum number of members of the
Tribunal and the Selecting Committee.

Proposed Amendments:

The bill was then revised by the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. Dr. T. Subbarami Reddy was the
Chairman of the committee which had members from both the houses. They proposed certain
changes in the bill in their report dated 24th November, 2009.

Page | 20
CONCLUSION

Ever Since the expansion of Industries and the beginning of ‘developmental’ activities in the
country a large number of environmental issues have also come up. There are a number of
instances where such human activities have caused immense damage to the environment.

India is one of the very few nations in the world who give immense amount of importance to
environmental conservation. There are already a number of legislations that deal with
environment and forest conservation and protection. The Green Tribunal adds another feather
to India’s cap.

There have been other such bodies like the NEAA and NETA which have failed to serve the
purpose they were constituted for but it will be unfair to compare them to the Green Tribunal.
Failures in the past must not deter us from moving forward to new beginnings.

For a country that has faced one of the world’s most horrifying industrial disasters, setting up
a body like the Green Tribunal obviously seems to be an excellent idea. The critics of the
Tribunal however fear that it is going to deliver more of the same. That is, nothing!

Although the Act is still facing a lot of criticism, yet its basic framework appears reassuring
and it is hard to say that it is not the step in the right direction. It would bring about the much
needed reform in the way the courts deal with environmental issues and also the way people
perceive environmental damage.

With the introduction of a legal system that supports and encourages environmental justice, the
green tribunal shall make India a role model for its neighbouring nations of South-East Asia.

Page | 21
Bibliography-
1. "NGT Bill, 2009". Archived from the original on 18 Sep 2013.
Retrieved 22 September 2013.

2. National Green Tribunal Website

3. Ministry of Environment and Forest Website

4. http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/NGT-fin.pdf

5. Resources concerning National Green Tribunal - Court Orders,

Judgements, Opinion, Review, etc.
6. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/300742
7. http://envfor.nic.in/legis/others/envapp97.html
8. http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/env/env1.html
9. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/National%20Green%20Tr
ibunal.pdf
10.Official website of National Green Tribunal
11. http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/chairperson.php
12.http://moef.nic.in/rules-regulations/national-green-tribunal-ngt
13.NGT recommends conservation zone on Yamuna

Page | 22