Supreme Court Affirms National Green Tribunal’s Suo Motu Powers in Environmental Cases (7 October 2021)

Arguments Against Suo Motu Power

• Tribunal’s Statutory Limits: The NGT is a creature of statute and, like other statutory tribunals, is bound by its statutory confines. It cannot assume inherent powers similar to those of the Supreme Court or High Courts under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, respectively.
  • Reliance was placed on Standard Chartered Vs. Dharminder Bhohi [2013] 15 SCC 341, Transcore Vs. Union of India [2008] 1 SCC 125, and Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath [2011] 9 SCC 541, to argue that Tribunals have limited powers and cannot exercise powers not expressly given by the statute.
• Need for a Dispute: The NGT Act applies to ‘disputes,’ which necessarily involve a lis between two or more parties. The NGT cannot act without a claimant or applicant.
  • Reliance was placed on Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. [2018] 11 SCC 734, to argue that there must be a substantial question relating to the environment and that question must arise in a dispute.
• Lack of General Judicial Review Power: The NGT does not have the general power of judicial review that superior courts possess. This limitation suggests that the NGT’s powers are limited and exclude any suo motu exercise.
  • Reliance was placed on Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. [2019] 19 SCC 479, to argue that the NGT does not have powers of judicial review akin to that of a High Court.

Arguments in Favor of Suo Motu Power

• Special Role of NGT: The NGT has a special role in environmental protection, and the history of its incorporation supports the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction.
• Expanded Locus Standi: While the NGT Act expands the concept of locus standi for intervention under Section 18(2)(e), it does not explicitly bar the tribunal from taking action on its own.
• Epistolary Jurisdiction: It was conceded that the NGT can commence action on environmental matters even on receipt of a letter, implying a broader scope of action beyond formal applications.

Summary of Arguments

Cases

• Standard Chartered Vs. Dharminder Bhohi [2013] 15 SCC 341 – This case was cited to highlight the limitations of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing that tribunals are bound by statutory parameters. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal was given power under the statute to pass such other orders and give such directions to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice but in discharge of its functions the Tribunal was required to confine itself to within the statutory parameters.
• Transcore Vs. Union of India [2008] 1 SCC 125 – This case was cited to support the argument that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is a creature of statute and has no inherent powers. The Supreme Court noted that the DRT is a tribunal, it is the creature of the statute, it has no inherent power which exists in the civil courts.
• Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath [2011] 9 SCC 541 – This case was cited to support the argument that Consumer Forums are creatures of statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunals are creatures of the statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and the power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be exercised.
• Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. [2018] 11 SCC 734 – This case was cited to argue that the term ‘substantial question relating to environment’ was interpreted in an attenuated fashion to mean a question arising as part of a dispute. The Supreme Court noted that there must be a substantial question relating to the environment and that question must arise in a dispute.
• Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. [2019] 19 SCC 479 – This case was cited to argue that the NGT is not a tribunal set up under Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, but is a statutory tribunal set up under the NGT Act. The Supreme Court noted that the NGT does not exercise the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court and the Tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot strike down rules or regulations made under the Act.
• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. UOI [1996] 5 SCC 647 – This case was cited to highlight that environment and environmental principles are part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• M.C. Mehta vs. UOI [1997] 2 SCC 353 – This case was cited to highlight that environment and environmental principles are part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan vs. Union of India [2012] 8 SCC 326 – This case was cited to highlight that environmental issues and matters covered under the NGT Act, Schedule I should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the High Courts and NGT.
• Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation [2019] 18 SCC 494 – This case was cited to emphasize that the NGT is a specialized judicial body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment.
• Rajeev Suri vs. DDA 2021 SCC Online SC 7 – This case was cited in the context of ‘Merits Review’ and the NGT transgressing beyond its environmental mandate.
• Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors. [1999] 2 SCC 718 – This case was cited to show that from the very inception, the role of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory but to perform equally vital roles which are preventative, ameliorative or remedial in nature.
• State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union [2019] 8 SCC 177 – This case was cited to show that the NGT has a duty to do justice while exercising “wide range of jurisdiction” and the “wide range of powers”.
• Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab [1999] 2 SCC 131 – This case was cited to explain the concept of a sui generis institution.
• DG NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch 2020 SCC Online SC 572 – This case was cited to comment on the sui generis role of the NGT.
• State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr. [1976] 1 SCC 719 – This case was cited to highlight that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice.
• H.P. Bus Stand Management & Development Authority vs. Central Empowered Committee [2021] 4 SCC 309 – This case was cited to highlight the environmental rule of law.

Statutory Provisions

• Section 2(1)(c) of the NGT Act: Defines the term “environment”.
• Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act: Defines “substantial question relating to environment”.
• Section 14 of the NGT Act: Grants original jurisdiction to the NGT.
• Section 15 of the NGT Act: Deals with relief, compensation, and restitution.
• Section 16 of the NGT Act: Grants appellate jurisdiction to the Tribunal.
• Section 17 of the NGT Act: Provides for liability to pay relief or compensation in certain cases.
• Section 18(2)(d) of the NGT Act: Specifies who can move an application/appeal before the Tribunal.
• Section 19 of the NGT Act: Provides for the procedure and powers of the Tribunal.
• Section 20 of the NGT Act: Requires the Tribunal to apply certain environmental principles.
• Section 25 of the NGT Act: Allows the Tribunal to execute its order/decision as a decree of the Civil Court.
• Section 29 of the NGT Act: Bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
• Section 33 of the NGT Act: Gives the NGT Act an overriding effect over other laws.
• Rule 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011: Empowers the Tribunal to make orders or give directions to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.

How Authorities Were Viewed

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Standard Chartered Vs. Dharminder Bhohi [2013] 15 SCC 341* was cited to show that tribunals are bound by statutory parameters. The Court distinguished this case by stating that the NGT has been given much leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role.
• Transcore Vs. Union of India [2008] 1 SCC 125* was cited to show that tribunals have no inherent powers. The Court distinguished this case by stating that the NGT has been given much leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role.
• Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath [2011] 9 SCC 541* was cited to show that tribunals derive power from express provisions of the statute. The Court distinguished this case by stating that the NGT has been given much leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role.
• Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. [2018] 11 SCC 734* was cited to argue that a dispute is necessary for NGT action. The Court distinguished this case by stating that the exercise of power by the NGT is not circumscribed by receipt of application.
• Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. [2019] 19 SCC 479* was cited to show that the NGT does not have powers of judicial review like a High Court. The Court acknowledged this, but stated that it does not preclude the NGT from exercising suo motu powers within its statutory mandate.
• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. UOI [1996] 5 SCC 647* was cited to highlight that environment and environmental principles are part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed this position.
• M.C. Mehta vs. UOI [1997] 2 SCC 353* was cited to highlight that environment and environmental principles are part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed this position.
• Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan vs. Union of India [2012] 8 SCC 326* was cited to highlight that environmental issues should be litigated before the NGT to avoid conflict with High Courts. The Court affirmed this position.
• Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation [2019] 18 SCC 494* was cited to emphasize that the NGT is a specialized judicial body for environmental cases. The Court affirmed this position.
• Rajeev Suri vs. DDA 2021 SCC Online SC 7* was cited to show that the NGT does not have inherent power of residuary character. The Court affirmed this position.
• Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors. [1999] 2 SCC 718* was cited to show that the NGT’s role is not simply adjudicatory. The Court affirmed this position.
• State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union [2019] 8 SCC 177* was cited to show that the NGT has a duty to do justice while exercising wide jurisdiction. The Court affirmed this position.
• Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab [1999] 2 SCC 131* was cited to explain the concept of a sui generis institution. The Court affirmed this position.
• DG NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch 2020 SCC Online SC 572* was cited to comment on the sui generis role of the NGT. The Court affirmed this position.
• State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr. [1976] 1 SCC 719* was cited to highlight that processual law should aid, not obstruct, justice. The Court affirmed this position.
• H.P. Bus Stand Management & Development Authority vs. Central Empowered Committee [2021] 4 SCC 309* was cited to highlight the environmental rule of law. The Court affirmed this position.