Question 3: National Green Tribunal [Constitution, Function and

Relevance]
National Green Tribunal was established in 2010 which was under the National green tribunal act. This act
is related to the disposal of civil cases in relation to environmental protection and also for the conservation
of natural resources. There is an inclusion of legal rights and which are related to the environment.
In recent years, a lot of pressure has been imposed on the natural sources of the environment due to the
expansion of the industries, transportation and increasing urbanization and there are pending cases related
to the environment in other courts. So, this reason includes setting up of National Green Tribunal under the
Act.
India being a member of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment called upon to provide a
very effective judicial and administrative proceedings and to redress the liabilities regarding National laws
for the victims in relation to environmental pollution and damage. The main object is the right to life, and a
healthy environment which is given under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been constructed in the
matter of judicial proceedings.
The National Green Tribunal is enacted for the strict liability which can be imposed after one indulges in
environmental damages or accidents related to hazardous substances. There is setting up of National Green
Tribunal Under this Act for better relief and compensation with regards to the damages to persons, property
and the environment.
The working of the NGT is guided by two basic principles- ‘the polluter pays’ principle and ‘sustainable
development’ principle. It was formed in furtherance of India’s commitment towards establishing a national
forum for the redressal of environment related disputes at the Rio de Janeiro summit. The summit was
convened in 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Conservation of Environment and Development.
After the establishment of NGT, India became the third country, after Australia and New Zealand, to come up
with a national forum for addressing issues of environmental protection.
Over the last five years (from July 2018 to July 2023), NGT received 15,132 new cases and resolved 16,042
cases. The chairperson's bench alone concluded 8,419 cases. These details were shared by law minister
Arjun Ram Meghwal in Parliament earlier this year.
Eminent environment scientist Madhav Gadgil said, “It is the one arm of the judiciary which has and does
provide some protection for the environment. While it is unfortunate the ministry of environment, forests
and climate change never managed to fully execute its duties to the environment and citizens, the NGT over
the past 13 years did live up to the hope of the common person. We hope the role of this body does not get
diluted especially in the turbulent times of climate change.”
Objectives
The NGT was formed with the objective of a special focus on environmental related incidents including the
protection of forest and natural resources. Following are the major objectives of the tribunal:
 To ensure that environment related laws are obeyed and act as a watchdog in case of any violations.
 To ensure the safety and conservation of forest and forest animals.
 To prevent the harm caused to the environment due to government or private actions.
 To ensure proper implementation of environmental related laws as listed in Schedule I of the
National Green Tribunal Act.
  To provide compensation to those who are victims of environmental degradation and who have
suffered damages as a result of it.
 To work towards spreading awareness about various environment related laws and the issues
prevalent in the society.
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.
The Chairperson of the NGT is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Head Quartered 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.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
Under section 14 of the act, the tribunal shall have jurisdiction to the following:
 The tribunal has jurisdiction over the civil cases which are in consonance of the matters related to
the environment.
 The tribunal shall involve the disputes related to the above-written matter.
 The application should only be made in the time span of six months from the commencement of
cause of the case.
According to the provisions given under section 29 of the act, the following is the bar of jurisdiction:
 No civil court is determined to entertain any case which is empowered to determine as an appeal.
 The civil courts are also barred to entertain any question which is related to the compensation or
relief is given by the Tribunal.
 No civil court is given permission to grant an injunction on a particular case before the tribunal which
is in respect to the settlement of disputes in case of compensation or restitution of property.
The act provides relief to any party who has rendered the status of victim in relation to the causes of
environmental pollution and dealing with other environmental problems or hazardous status.
Currently, the tribunal enjoys power relating to the implementation of the following Acts:
 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
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.
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.
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:
 Relief/compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage including accidents
involving hazardous substances;
 Restitution of property damaged;
 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.
Powers of the tribunal
Under section 19 of the act, the Tribunal shall have the power that would be required to regulate its own
procedure.
The powers of the tribunal are as follows:
 Power to relief by issuing the compensation to the aggrieved person after analyzing the matter in a
scientific manner with a properly researched report.
 Issuance of the commission for witnessing the documents
 Reviewing the decision of a particular case
 It has a power of dismissing the application if it is considered to have defaulted or it’s decided to be
ex parte.
 Granting the interim orders are considered as a power to the tribunal and it can be done after
hearing both the parties.
 Power to give an order regarding the measurement of a person from further committing or violating
the enactments specified in the Schedule I.
Under section 20, the tribunal has the power to pass any order or award in relation to the substantial
development.
Under section 21 of the act, decisions which are taken by the majority of the members in the tribunal are
considered as binding on the aggrieved parties.
Under section 26 of the act, In the matter of failure to comply with the decision given by the tribunal, the
National green tribunal follows a method of deterrent punishment.
The provisions laid down for the punishment are as follows:
 Imprisonment extended up to three years
 Fine which may extend up to ten crore rupees
 Or with both imprisonment and the fine
In case if the contravention is still followed every day, the amount of twenty-five thousand rupees will be
charged every day.
Clean air is a statutory right for all citizens: Starting November 26, 2014 (in the case of Vardhaman Kaushik
vs. Union of India and others), the NGT made significant rulings to address the pressing issue of air pollution
in Delhi. Recognising clean air as a fundamental right, the NGT issued a series of directives aimed at
mitigating air pollution and improving air quality.
It banned the operation of vehicles older than 15 years, both diesel and petrol, on the city's roads and
mandated appropriate legal actions against those violating this order. A web portal was established to allow
citizens to report environmental violations.
₹79,234.36-crore penalty for improper waste management: The NGT addressed shortcomings in waste
management across states, specifically focusing on solid and liquid waste management in compliance with
Supreme Court orders. In an order dated May 18, 2023, the NGT determined compensation
totalling ₹79,234.36 crore. This compensation was calculated based on acknowledged gaps in waste
management. To ensure that these funds are used for environmental restoration, the NGT has required the
amount to be kept in a ring-fenced account. This account will finance restoration measures as outlined in
action plans overseen by the respective chief secretaries of the states and union territories. “The NGT is
actively working to address environmental concerns and hold responsible parties accountable for the
damage caused by inadequate waste management practices,” said Dr Afroz Ahmad, an environment
scientist and a former civil servant
Wildlife clearance for development in elephant reserves and corridors: In the case Kashmira Kakati vs
Union of India and others, filed in 2014, the NGT raised serious concerns about the lack of legal rules to
safeguard elephant reserves and corridors. These corridors are essential for elephants to move freely and
safely. The NGT issued orders to safeguard elephants and their habitats. It declared areas where elephants
live as conservation reserves and made sure that places like Bogapani Corridor, in Assam's Tinsukia district,
are part of the elephant corridors. The NGT also ordered Coal India that abandoned mines in Jeypore
Reserve Forest (part of Dehing Patkai Reserve in Assam) should be given back to the forest department for
restoration. Furthermore, the NGT made it mandatory to get wildlife clearance before starting any new
projects in areas where elephants live.
Vizag gas tragedy
A huge gas leak from a chemical facility in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, happened and quickly spread to
areas within a five-kilometer radius, killing at least eleven people; children were also among the deceased. A
large number of household animals, cattle, and plants were harmed as well. The manufacturing factory used
styrene monomers to make expandable polymers and it should be kept at a temperature of less than 20°C.
The factory was temporarily shut down due to the lockdown because of COVID-19 except for maintenance
tasks that were completed within a defined time range.
The National Green Tribunal took a suo moto cognizance of this tragedy and registered a case. The National
Green Tribunal formed a five-member committee to visit the site and submit a report to it within 10 days in
response to the tragic chemical gas leak in Vizag, Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal under the chairmanship of
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel also directed LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the facility where the gas
escaped, to deposit payment of Rs. 50 crores with the District Magistrate of Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal
also said that leakage of hazardous gas at such a scale adversely affects public health and the
environment, clearly attracts the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ against the enterprise engaged in
hazardous or inherently dangerous industry and for the loss of life and public health in the gas leak incident
at its plant in Visakhapatnam.
The committee formed was asked to report on:
  The chain of events;
 The extent of damage to life, human and non-human; public health; and the environment –
including, water, soil, air;
 Causes of failure and persons and authorities responsible, therefore;
 Steps to be taken for compensation of victims and restitution of the damaged property and
environment, and the cost involved;
 Remedial measures to prevent recurrence; and
 Any other incidental or allied issues found relevant.
Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors - Even a Foreign National Can Approach the NGT
A complaint regarding various instances of illegal construction in the Coastal Regulation Zone of Candolim,
Goa was made by a personal of foreign nationality. Her name was Betta Alvarez. Before the case could be
decided on merits the maintainability of the main application was challenged.
There were two objections:
The first objection was that Betty Alvarez had no locus standi in the matter because she was not an Indian
citizen and thus legally incompetent to file the petition under Article 21 because as a non-citizen, she has
not been guaranteed any right under the Indian Constitution. The second objection was that the matter was
barred by the law of limitation and should be dismissed. The case was initiated in the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay Bench at Goa in the form of a PIL but by an order dated Oct 23, 2012, the Writ Petition was
transferred to the National Green Tribunal.
Regarding the first and main objection by the Respondents in this matter, the Tribunal disagreed from taking
a narrow view of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Tribunal in bold terms stated that even assuming that the Applicant – Betty Alvarez is not a citizen of
India, the Application is still maintainable as she had filed several other writ petitions and contempt
applications before she filed the present application, in which she had asserted that the Respondents had
raised some illegal constructions by way of which they were encroaching the sea beaches along with
governmental properties. Betty by her application sought the demolition of such illegal construction. When
despite finding substance in the complaints of Ms. Betty Alvarez the concerned authorities did not take the
requisite action, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
In order to answer the issue about locus standi, the court impressed on a plain reading of Section 2(j) of the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the very act by which the Tribunal has come into being. Interpreting this
section, the Tribunal found that the word ‘person’ deserves to be construed in a broad sense to include an
individual, whether a national or a person who is not an Indian citizen. The Court noted that going into the
details of Betty’s nationality is not required.
The Court laid down in very bold terms that once it is found that any person can file a proceeding related to
the environmental dispute, Ms. Betty’s application is maintainable without regards to the question of her
nationality.
Almitra H. Patel & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors - Complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands
In this case, Mrs. Almitra Patel and another had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
before the Apex Court whereby the Petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in the
practices that are presently adopted for the way Municipal Solid Waste or garbage is treated in India.
The Tribunal found that the magnitude of the problem was gigantic because over a lakh ton of raw garbage
is dumped every day and there is no proper treatment of this raw garbage which is dumped just outside the
city limits on land, along highway, lakes, nalas etc. The Tribunal noted the requirement of conversion of this
waste into a source of power and fuel to be used for society’s benefit, taking into consideration the
Principles of Circular Economy.
 The Tribunal after having evaluated every aspect of this problem issued over 25 directions.
 The Tribunal directed every state and UT to implement the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
immediately and prepare an action plan in terms of the Rules within 4 weeks.
 Further, the Tribunal Directed the Central Government, state governments, local bodies and all
citizens to perform their respective obligations under the Rules without any delay.
 Direction was issued to ensure proper segregation before processing of waste in energy plants. It
mandated the provision of buffer zones around plants and landfills as required.
 Absolute segregation has been made mandatory in waste to energy plants and landfills should be
used for depositing inert waste only and are subject to bio-stabilization within 6 months.
 The most important direction of the Tribunal was a complete prohibition on open burning of waste
on lands, including at landfills.
Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The NGT addressed the liability of a power company for the damage caused by the 2013 Uttarakhand
floods. The petitioners alleged that the first respondent had dumped a significant amount of muck during
the construction of the Srinagar Hydro Electric Project, which contributed to the flood damage.
The NGT held that the damage to the property was not solely an act of God but was also the result of the
respondent's negligence. The tribunal invoked the principle of "No Fault Liability" under Section 17(3) of the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and held the power company liable to pay compensation for the damage
caused. This judgment underscored the importance of holding polluters accountable for their actions and
ensuring that they bear the cost of environmental damage.
Manoj Misra v DDA and Ors
Founded in 1981 by Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, The Art of Living Foundation is a Non-Governmental Organization
working on humanitarian and educational matters. In March 2016, this organization staged a three-day
cultural event – the World Cultural Festival from 11th to 13th March, at the Yamuna floodplains in New
Delhi.
The Yamuna banks are considered to be ecologically very fragile but the arrangements for the festival were
stupendous. A 7-acre stage, claimed to be the largest in the world, and capable of accommodating 35,000
musicians and dancers, was set up. New dirt tracks were built, in addition to 650 portable toilets spread over
a thousand acres of area. According to the organizers, the event was attended by 35 lakh people and over
20,000 international guests.
A petition was filed on 8th February 2016 before the National Green Tribunal by Sri Manoj Mishra against
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Several miscellaneous petitions were clubbed with this OA and the
respondent parties, other than DDA, was the Art of Living (AOL) Foundation, the Ministry of Environment &
Forest and Climate Change. Shri Mishra had earlier filed a written complaint against the respondents to the
Lt. Governor of Delhi on 11th December, 2015 and later filed the present application before the NGT.
1. Whether the Yamuna floodplains and wetlands have been and are being destroyed ecologically,
environmentally and biologically by the Art of Living Foundation.
 2. In the event of such adverse environmental impact and consequence, if any, whether the organizers
are liable to pay any compensation or fine for such damage and restore the venue to its pre-existing
condition.
It was alleged by the petitioners that the preparations for holding the event had already destroyed and
degraded the ecologically fragile environment of the Yamuna Floodplains, and if the event was allowed to
be held, it would be an ecological disaster and hence it should not be allowed to be held and the
organizations be fined.
The Tribunal passed an interim order on 9th March, 2016, asking AOL to pay compensation of Rs 5 Crore
After giving many interim orders, the tribunal passed its final judgement on 7th December 2017. It held the
Art of Living Foundation liable for the damages caused to the Yamuna floodplains which are under the
limited jurisdictions of the DDA. The foundation would be responsible for restoration/restitution of the
floodplains (limited to the area that was allotted to it) to the condition that existed before the event. The
sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000 deposited by the foundation as environmental compensation would be used for
restoration/restitution of the floodplains.
It was also ordered that DDA would be free to recover additional compensation from the foundation if they
need to undertake more restoration works and the foundation would be liable to pay it. On the other hand,
surplus amounts, if any, would be refunded by DDA to the foundation. The Tribunal, while pulling up DDA for
failing to perform its statutory role in the protection of the environment, did not impose any extra fine on
the authority, as the tribunal was satisfied that it had already decided to build Biodiversity Parks and to
improve the environmental condition of the area from their funds. The court did not find any merit on the
objections raised by the foundation regarding the report of the High-Powered Committee.
Interestingly, in its judgement, the tribunal did not decide on the right of the organizers to hold the event,
because it felt that the matter did not fall squarely under its jurisdiction. It concentrated on the pollution
that resulted from the event and how this issue would be settled in accordance with the law.
The Expert Committee blamed the organizers for the destruction of the entire floodplain and removal of the
natural vegetation. It was also stated that the ground is “totally devoid” of water bodies and that, “no plant
cover was visible anywhere”. Strangely, the onus was put completely on the organizers when it is a matter of
record that illegal agriculture was being practiced at the venue for a long time before the event was planned.
Thus, is it very natural the vegetation of the floodplains was cleared for practicing agriculture.
“This ruling served as a stark reminder that even well-intentioned events must adhere to stringent
environmental regulations, especially when they occur in sensitive areas,” said Gadgil, adding that the NGT's
involvement, in this case, highlighted its unwavering commitment to safeguarding fragile ecosystems and
preserving the ecological balance.
“The order set a precedent for the responsible conduct of large-scale events, emphasising the need to
prioritise environmental protection alongside cultural and spiritual endeavours.”