Supreme Court emphasizes Natural Justice in NGT Fly Ash Case: Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors. (2023) INSC 618 (05 July 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 05 July 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 618
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna J., Prashant Kumar Mishra J.
Can an environmental tribunal issue binding directions without giving the affected parties a chance to respond to expert reports? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning fly ash management by thermal power plants. The Court emphasized that even specialized bodies like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) must adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring fair hearings for all parties involved. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness in environmental litigation.

Case Background

The case originated from a petition filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) regarding the improper management of fly ash by several thermal power plants in the Singrauli and Sonebhadra areas. The NGT, after receiving reports from an expert committee, issued a series of directions aimed at improving fly ash management, restoring the environment, and compensating victims of environmental damage. However, the affected power plants, the appellants in this case, argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to object to the expert committee’s findings or to present their side of the story before the NGT issued its final order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) constituted an expert committee to investigate the allegations of environmental violations. Based on the committee’s reports and recommendations, the NGT issued directions to the thermal power plants. These directions included the formation of a fly ash management mission, determination of compensation for past violations, and implementation of remedial measures. The power plants, feeling aggrieved by the NGT’s order, appealed to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the NGT had violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing them to object to the expert committee’s reports before issuing its directions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which states:

“The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.”

This section emphasizes that while the NGT is not bound by the strict procedures of a civil court, it must still adhere to the principles of natural justice, which include the right to be heard and the right to respond to evidence.

Arguments

The appellants, primarily thermal power plants, argued that the NGT violated the principles of natural justice by not giving them an opportunity to object to the expert committee’s reports. The Solicitor General, representing the appellants, highlighted that the reports were uploaded on the NGT website just three days before the final order was issued, leaving them with insufficient time to review and respond. They contended that the NGT should have allowed them to file objections and provided a hearing before issuing its directions.

The appellants also argued that the NGT did not independently assess the recommendations of the expert committee. Instead, it simply accepted the recommendations without considering the specific circumstances of each power plant. This, they argued, was a failure of the NGT’s adjudicatory function.

The respondents, including the Union of India and other private parties, supported the arguments of the appellants, acknowledging the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

✓ Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants with an opportunity to object to the expert committee’s reports before issuing its final directions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the NGT had indeed violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants with an adequate opportunity to respond to the expert committee’s reports. The Court emphasized that while the NGT is a specialized body, it must still adhere to the basic tenets of procedural fairness.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that while the NGT is an expert body, it is still bound by the basic requirements of fairness and due process. The Court noted that the NGT’s approach of simply accepting the expert committee’s recommendations without giving the affected parties a chance to respond was a clear violation of these principles.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• “The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.” (Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010)
• The NGT is a judicial body and must adhere to principles of natural justice.
• “The adjudicatory function of the NGT cannot be assigned to committees, even expert committees. The decision has to be that of the NGT.”
• Expert committee reports are only to assist the NGT and are not binding.
• “The facet of audi alterum partem encompasses the components of notice, contents of the notice, reports of inquiry, and materials that are available for perusal.”

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the violation of natural justice was clear. The Court found that the NGT’s procedure was fundamentally flawed because it did not allow the affected parties to present their objections or to be heard before the final decision was made.

The Court concluded that the NGT’s order was unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice. The Court set aside the NGT’s order and remanded the matter back to the NGT for reconsideration.

Key Takeaways

• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) must adhere to the principles of natural justice, even though it is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Parties affected by NGT orders must be given an opportunity to object to expert committee reports and be heard before final directions are issued.
• Expert committee reports are advisory and do not substitute the NGT’s adjudicatory role.
• NGT cannot delegate its core adjudicatory functions to expert committees.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order and remanded the matter back to the NGT. The NGT was directed to:

• Allow the appellant power plants to file objections to the expert committee’s reports.
• Provide a hearing to all parties involved.
• Reconsider the matter and issue fresh directions in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the principles of natural justice are paramount, and even specialized tribunals like the NGT must adhere to them. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in environmental litigation and clarifies that the NGT cannot delegate its adjudicatory functions to expert committees. This case does not change the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing law on natural justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court’s decision ensures that even in cases involving specialized bodies like the National Green Tribunal, the fundamental rights of parties to be heard and to respond to evidence are upheld. This judgment reinforces the need for procedural fairness and transparency in environmental litigation.

Category

Parent Category: Environmental Law
Child Categories: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Principles of Natural Justice; Fly Ash Management; Thermal Power Plants; Section 19, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station case?
A: The main issue was whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the affected power plants a chance to respond to expert reports before issuing its directions.

Q: What are the principles of natural justice?
A: The principles of natural justice include the right to be heard (audi alterum partem) and the right to an unbiased decision. In this case, it means that the power plants should have had a chance to object to the expert reports and present their side of the story.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the NGT had violated the principles of natural justice. It set aside the NGT’s order and sent the case back to the NGT for reconsideration, directing the NGT to allow the power plants to file objections and be heard.

Q: What does this mean for future cases before the NGT?
A: This means that the NGT must ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to respond to expert reports and present their case before any final directions are issued. The NGT cannot simply accept expert reports without giving affected parties a chance to be heard.

Q: Can the NGT delegate its decision-making power to expert committees?
A: No, the NGT cannot delegate its core adjudicatory functions to expert committees. Expert committees can assist the NGT, but the final decision must be made by the NGT itself.