Landmark judgements by National Green Tribunal


Deergh Uppal

A tribunal, in general, is any institution or person with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes – whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title.

The National Green Tribunal is The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of India that requires the establishment of a special tribunal to deal with environmental issues expeditiously.

It draws inspiration from the constitutional provision of India (Constitution of India/Part III) Article 21 security of life and personal liberty, which guarantees the people of India. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) is Delhi’s pollution control department.

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is defined by the legislative is as follows:

An Act providing for the creation of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to the protection of the environment and the conservation of natural resources, including the enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment and the awarding of compensation and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected with or incidental to them.

The dedicated jurisdiction of the Tribunal in environmental matters shall include speedy environmental justice and shall help reduce the burden of higher court litigation. The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be directed by principles of natural justice.

The tribunal is ultimately obligated to attempt to dispose of applications or appeals within 6 months of filing the same. The NGT is initially proposed to be mounted at five seating locations and will follow the circuit procedure to make itself more available.


In the 1992 summit of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, India vowed the taking part to offer judicial and administrative treatments to the sufferers of the pollution and different environmental damage.

There lie many motives at the back of the putting in place of this tribunal. After India’s flow with Carbon credits, such tribunal might also additionally play a critical function in making sure the manipulate of emissions and retaining the preferred levels. This is the primary frame of its type this is required via way of means of its figure statute to use the “polluter pays” principle and the principle of sustainable development.

This court can rightly be called ‘special’ due to the fact India had this system following Australia and New Zealand. Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) functions under the act of (NGT).

Landmark Cases

Samir Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors.


On 12.08.2011 a ship (M.V. Rak Carrier) carrying over 60054 metric plenty of coal and also containing 290 tonnes of fuel and 50 tonnes of diesel sank approximately 20 nautical miles from the coast of South Mumbai because of water ingression in ballast tanks, which went on because of technical faults.

Delta Group International shipped the coal for Adani Enterprises Limited. The marine oil spill over the ocean has caused environmental damage to aquatic life and thus caused marine pollution. Adani enterprises had taken no action to manage the pollution caused by spillage whatsoever.

So, the Indian Coastguard stepped in and made measures to regulate the damage caused and as a result, a significant amount of costs was incurred by the Indian Government. Samir Mehta, an environmentalist, filed the petition before the NGT.

Samir Mehta questioned the importance of environmental jurisprudence, in relevance to the pollution caused by the sinking of the ship and oil spillage in the body of water, contiguous zone and therefore the Exclusive Economic Zone of the country and consequences and liabilities arising therefrom. The petitioner filed it under sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “2010 Act”).


Whether the NGT has jurisdiction to do this case, because the incident befell around 20 nautical miles from the coast of Mumbai, which is past the territorial waters of India that extends simplest as much as 12 nautical miles.

Whether the Tribunal has the power to grant repayment in lieu of lawful workout undertaken through the Government of India (Indian Coast Guard).

On whom the legal responsibility has to be fixed; because the sender and his subsidiaries meant to play the blame game, the insurer is registered out of doors India and became claiming bankruptcy, the re-insurer, additionally an overseas entity, became now no longer a celebration and the receiver (Adani) became claiming no-fault theory; he claimed that his goods (non-choking coal) did not affect the marine or coastal ecosystem.

Whether sinking amounted to dumping.


The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the case because India’s sovereignty over the herbal sources extends to the contiguous area and different financial areas beneath the Maritime Zones Act, 1976.

Under this Act, the Central Government has different jurisdictions to maintain and defend maritime surroundings inside the stated zones and to gain this purpose, the tribunal has jurisdiction to address subjects referring to maritime pollutants in different financial zones.

The Tribunal has also held that it has the energy to supply reimbursement for the charges incurred through the Central Government to smooth the wrecks which can also additionally pose dangers to navigation and marine surroundings. Even diverse worldwide conventions offer provisions to that effect.

So, respondents wide variety five, 7 & 11 (Delta Group International) have been held susceptible to pay environmental reimbursement/damages to the track of Rs. 100 Crores to the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India under Sections 15 & 17 studied with Sections 14 & 20 of the 2010 Act, for inflicting marine pollutants.

The Tribunal, regarding the legal responsibility of Adani companies, held that in keeping with Section 71 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 even though someone isn’t always a proprietor of delivering, however, he’s beneficially involved aside from through manner of loan he’s susceptible to pay pecuniary damages.

Hence, inside the gift case, Adani companies are susceptible to pay damages as much as a track of five crore rupees to the Ministry of Shipping. The respondents have discharged their responsibility and are, therefore, accountable under the Precautionary Principle and additionally susceptible to pay reimbursement to the Government of India for the pollutants caused.

The Court thereby reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and additionally identified the Right to smooth surroundings as an essential thing under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the safety of existence and private liberty.

The Tribunal held that the deliver sinking twist of fate is stated to have caused the pollutants of the marine surroundings on 3 counts:

(a) Dumping of the shipment, i.e., coal into the sea;

(b) Release of the Fuel oil saved onboard and the consequent oil spill because of it and

(c) wreckage of the deliver itself, which contained the materials.

In the prevailing case, the deliver used inside the shipping is unseaworthy and the respondents ought to have by no means used the deliver for shipping purpose. Therefore, in the present case, the sinking of the deliver is held equal to dumping.

Thus, the Tribunal had subsequently presented reimbursement to the track of a hundred crores to the Delta Group and five crores to the Adani Enterprises to be paid to the Ministry of Shipping under the Government of India.


Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors


In this case, an appeal was filed through an organization named Save Mon Region Federation in conjunction with a social activist in opposition to the grant of Environmental Clearance given to an INR 6,400 crore hydro venture.

The stated task was located near the wintering site for a bird named Black-necked Crane, which is a Schedule one species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and comes under in the ‘Threatened Birds of India’ literature produced via way of means of the Appellants. Apart from the birds, the vicinity turned into domestic to numerous different endangered species inclusive of the snow leopard, red panda, Arunachal macaque, etc.


The Tribunal proactively suspended the Environmental Clearance granted to the Project.

The Tribunal directed the EAC to make a fresh appraisal of the thought for environmental clearance furnish and requested the Ministry of Environment and Forest to make a separate take a look at the safety of the stated bird.


Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Alaknanda hydro Power Co. Ltd. & Ors.


The petitioners filed a petition mentioning numerous problems looking for instructions to the primary respondent, Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. to compensate with INR 9,26,42,795 towards the harm suffered. The 2013 Uttarakhand floods which brought on mass destruction of lifestyles and belongings is the backdrop of this case.

The case of the Applicants was that the primary Respondent had dumped a massive amount of ‘muck’ generated due to the Srinagar Hydro Electric Project without taking the prescribed degree to stable such a great deal from the floods.

Due to heavy rains, while the reservoirs of the Project were filled, because of the hole of the gates of the dam, all of the muck had caused inconvenience to the villages ensuing in a massive loss to the lifestyles and belongings of the Samiti.

The Tribunal needed to determine whether or not Respondent No. 1 gave the claimed compensation.


The Tribunal reached the realization that harm to the assets as alleged through the petitioners incurred due to flood water, which delivered alongside soil and muck, coming into residential premises.

The Tribunal mentioned that although the 2013 Uttarakhand floods had been the result of a cloud burst, the harm inflicted on the residential location was no longer the result of Act of God.

The muck was approximately 30 percent, which undeniably was the footprint of Respondent No.1’s involvement in the harm. And even supposing it turned into an Act of God, the Tribunal noticed the invocation of the ‘No Fault Liability’ below Section 17(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 justified, which precept made the Respondent No. 1 prone to pay the claimed repayment at the side of Rs. 1 lakh per petitioner.

This is one of these judgments, wherein the NGT has at once trusted the precept of ‘polluter pays’ and made a personal entity prone to pay a repayment, making them difficult to a code of environmental jurisprudence.


Almitra H. Patel & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.


Decided much less than a year ago, this matter has been the single largest landmark case managing the difficulty of strong waste control in India.

In this matter, Mrs. Almitra Patel and others had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India earlier wherein the Petitioner sought the instant and pressing development concerning the practices which are currently followed for the manner Municipal Solid Waste or rubbish is handled in India.

The Tribunal discovered that the importance of the dispute became huge due to the fact over a lakh of tonnes of uncooked rubbish is dumped each day and there may be no right remedy of this uncooked rubbish that is dumped simply out of doors the town limits on land, alongside highway, lakes, nalas, etc.

The whole society generated over 133760 MT of waste each day as of 2012-2013 and this has been growing with time.

The Tribunal cited the requirement of conversion of this waste into a supply of electricity and gasoline for use for society’s benefit, deliberating the Principles of Circular Economy.


The Tribunal after having evaluated each factor of this dispute issued over 25 directions.

The Tribunal directed each nation and UT to put in force the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and put together the plan in motion in phases within four weeks.

Further, the Tribunal directed the Central Government, state governments, local bodies, and all residents to carry out their respective duties below the Rules with no delay.

Absolute segregation has been made obligatory in waste for strength vegetation and landfills need to be used for depositing inert waste most effective and are a concern to bio-stabilization within 6 months.

The Tribunal ordered a prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, which includes at landfills.


Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors.


A criticism concerning unlawful creation inside the Coastal Regulation Zone of Candolim, Goa was raised by a person of overseas nationality whose name was Betta Alvarez.

Before the case might be determined on deserves, the maintainability of the primary complainant turned into a challenge.


The first objection turned into that Betty Alvarez had no locus standi as she not an Indian citizen and for this reason legally incompetent to report the petition under Article 21.

The second objection was that the problem was excluded by the law of limitation and has to be dismissed. The case had been initiated in the High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa as a PIL. However, on Oct 23, 2012, it turned into a writ petition turned and got transferred to the National Green Tribunal.


Regarding the primary and most important objection by the Respondents on this matter, the Tribunal disagreed from taking the respondents’ side.

The Tribunal, boldly, phrased that even assuming that the Applicant – Betty Alvarez wasn’t a citizen of India, the Application remains maintainable as she had filed numerous different writ petitions and contempt programs earlier.

To reply to the problem about locus standi, the court said about Section 2(j) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – the very act via way of means of which the Tribunal has come into being.

Interpreting this section, the Tribunal observed that the word ‘man or woman’ merits to be construed in a wide feel to encompass an individual, whether or not a countrywide or someone who isn’t always an Indian citizen. The Court mentioned that going into the information of Betty’s nationality isn’t required.


Art of living case on Yamuna Floodplain


Founded in 1981 by Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, The Art of Living Foundation is a Non-Governmental Organization running on humanitarian and academic matters.

In March 2016, this organization staged a three-day cultural occasion – the World Cultural Festival from the eleventh to thirteenth March, on the Yamuna floodplains in New Delhi.

The Yamuna banks are taken into consideration to be ecologically very fragile however the preparations for the festival have been stupendous. A seven-acre stage was set up which was the most important part, and able to accommodate 35,000 musicians and dancers. New dust tracks have been built; similarly to 650 transportable lavatories unfold over 1000 acres of area. According to the organizers, the occasion became attended by 35 lakh humans and over 20,000 global guests.

A petition was filed on eighth February 2016 before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, being Original Application (OA) through Sri Manoj Mishra, a retired officer of the Indian Forest Service against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Several miscellaneous petitions have been clubbed with this OA and the respondent parties, aside from DDA, became the Art of Living (AOL) Foundation, the Ministry of Environment & Forest and Climate Change.

Mishra had in advance filed a written criticism towards the respondents to the Lt. Governor of Delhi on eleventh December 2015.


Whether the Yamuna floodplains and wetlands had been and are being destroyed ecologically, environmentally, and biologically through the Art of Living Foundation.

In the occasion of such damaging environmental effect and consequence, if any, whether or not the organizers are at risk of pay any repayment or excellent for such harm and repair the venue to its pre-existing condition.


The judgement alleged through the petitioners that the arrangements for conducting the occasion had already destroyed and degraded the ecologically fragile surroundings of the Yamuna Floodplains and for this reason, it must now no longer be allowed to be held and the groups be fined.

The Tribunal asked to pay a fine of Rs 5 crore. It held the Art of Living Foundation accountable for the damages brought on to the Yamuna floodplains which might be below the constrained jurisdictions of the DDA. The basis might be chargeable for healing/restitution of the floodplains (constrained to the place that turned into allocated to it) to the circumstance that existed earlier than the occasion.

The Tribunal, at the same time, as pulling up DDA for failing to carry out its statutory function with inside the safety of the surroundings, did now no longer impose any greater great at the authority, because the tribunal was satisfied as it had already determined to construct Biodiversity Parks and to enhance the environmental circumstance of the place from their funds.

Interestingly, in its judgement, the tribunal did not determine the right of the organizers to organize the occasion. It focused on the pollutants that resulted from the occasion and the way this trouble might be settled according to the law.


As we can see from the above judgements, the major work of NGT is to protect the environment. The need of such unique environmental courts became highlighted through the Supreme Court of India in a chain of judgments, the primary one being in 1986 in the Oleum Gas Leak case, and with the aid of using the Law Commission of India in its 186th document in 2003.

The Court thought that environmental instances raised issues, which required technical information and knowledge, rapid disposal, and non-stop monitoring, and consequently, those instances must be determined with the aid of using unique courts with important knowledge and technical assistance.

The goal of the NGT Act is to offer powerful and expeditious disposal of instances referring to the safety of the environment. Even though the Act was brought on 2 June 2010, the primary listening of the Tribunal was held in May 2011. The Tribunal suffered from serious ‘teething troubles’.

Despite being a frame constituted with the aid of using an Act of Parliament, the Supreme Court needed to interfere to make sure important administrative preparations had been made with the aid of using diverse branches of the government for the Tribunal to become functional.

Related Post