LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) jurisdiction to direct State Governments to reconsider appointments to State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and to lay down guidelines for such appointments.
CASE TYPE: This case falls under environmental law and administrative law, specifically concerning the powers and jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the appointment of members to statutory bodies.
Case Name: Techi Tagi Tara vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors.
Judgment Date: 22 September 2017
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment on September 22, 2017, addressed the question of whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the authority to direct State Governments to review appointments to State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). The case, Techi Tagi Tara vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors., arose from an NGT order that was concerned about the lack of expertise among SPCB members.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the NGT’s concerns about the qualifications of SPCB members. However, it ruled that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the reconsideration of appointments and setting guidelines for future appointments. The bench comprised Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Lokur authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was perturbed by the lack of expertise among some members of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). This concern arose from a case challenging the composition of the SPCB in Uttarakhand. The NGT found that several states had appointed individuals without the necessary qualifications.
The NGT directed State Governments to reconsider these appointments. It also laid down guidelines for future appointments to ensure that only qualified professionals and experts were appointed. This order led to several appeals before the Supreme Court. The appellants challenged the NGT’s jurisdiction and the guidelines it had set.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26th September 1997 | Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the Government of India sends a letter to the Chief Secretary of every State highlighting the importance of the SPCBs, the fact that their activities are science and technology based and the necessity of taking relevant factors into consideration while making appointments to the SPCBs. |
| 29th and 30th January, 2001 | A conference was held in Coimbatore of the Ministers of Environment and Forests of the State Governments, recommending the induction of academicians, professionals, experts and technologists for the effective functioning of the SPCBs. |
| 3rd July, 2001 | A letter was addressed by the Secretary in the MoEF to the Chief Secretary of every State, following up on the recommendations of the conference held in Coimbatore. |
| 15th May, 2002 | Jharkhand High Court decision in Binay Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, highlighting the lack of qualifications of the Chairperson of the SPCB of that State. |
| 16th August, 2005 | MoEF sends another communication to all States/UTs regarding the constitution of the State Pollution Control Board/Pollution Control Committees (SPCBs PCCs). |
| 8th January, 2008 | Supreme Court directs the State of Uttarakhand and the SPCB to consider the desirability of making rules laying down essential qualifications and experience and other relevant factors for appointment of members in the SPCB. |
| 2013 | The Tata Institute of Social Sciences publishes a Report titled “Environmental Regulatory Authorities in India: An Assessment of State Pollution Control Boards” highlighting issues with appointments to SPCBs. |
| 24th August, 2016 | National Green Tribunal (NGT) passes the impugned order directing State Governments to reconsider the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs and laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs. |
| 22nd September 2017 | Supreme Court of India sets aside the judgment and order of the NGT. |
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to several key legal provisions. Section 4(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 5(2) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, outline the composition of State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). These sections specify the qualifications for the chairman and other members.
Article 48A of the Constitution mandates the State to protect and improve the environment. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution states that it is the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. Additionally, Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life, has been interpreted to include environmental protection.
Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, defines the jurisdiction of the NGT. Section 15 of the same Act outlines the relief, compensation, and restitution that the NGT can provide. Section 2(m) defines “substantial question relating to environment.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that the NGT overstepped its jurisdiction by directing State Governments to reconsider SPCB appointments. They contended that the NGT’s jurisdiction, as defined by Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is limited to disputes involving substantial environmental questions.
The appellants also argued that the appointment of SPCB members does not constitute a “dispute” as intended under the Act. They further argued that the NGT cannot grant the kind of relief it ordered, which was essentially a review of appointments.
The NGT’s order was based on the premise that the lack of qualified personnel in SPCBs hinders environmental protection. The NGT was concerned that many appointees did not meet the criteria laid down in the Water Act and Air Act. The NGT also relied on various committee reports that emphasized the need for experts in SPCBs.
The NGT also contended that the lack of qualified members in SPCBs is a substantial question relating to the environment. The NGT argued that this issue falls within its jurisdiction because it directly impacts the implementation of environmental laws.
| Appellants’ Submissions | NGT’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ The NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by directing reconsideration of appointments. | ✓ The NGT has jurisdiction over matters concerning environmental protection. |
| ✓ Appointment of SPCB members is not a “dispute” under the NGT Act. | ✓ The lack of qualified SPCB members is a substantial environmental issue. |
| ✓ The NGT cannot provide relief in the form of reviewing appointments. | ✓ The NGT’s order was necessary to ensure effective environmental governance. |
| ✓ The NGT does not have the power to issue guidelines for appointments. | ✓ The NGT was acting in public interest to ensure that the SPCBs are functional. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the NGT had the jurisdiction to direct State Governments to reconsider the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs.
- Whether the NGT had the power to lay down guidelines for the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to direct reconsideration of appointments | The Supreme Court held that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction. The appointment of SPCB members is not a “dispute” under the NGT Act. The NGT’s power is limited to disputes involving substantial environmental questions and the relief it can grant. |
| Power to lay down appointment guidelines | The Court found that the NGT did not have the power to lay down guidelines for appointments. The Court stated that while the NGT’s concerns were valid, the power to make such rules lies with the executive branch of the government. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court referred to several cases, committee reports, and legal provisions in its judgment. These authorities were used to support its reasoning and to highlight the importance of having qualified personnel in SPCBs.
The Court emphasized the importance of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 and the need for State Governments to adhere to the provisions contained therein. The Court also referred to the constitutional mandate under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.
The Court also took into consideration the recommendations of various committees like the Bhattacharya Committee of 1984, the Belliappa Committee of 1990, the Administrative Staff College of India Study of 1994, and the Menon Committee. The Court also took into consideration the report of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences published in 2013.
| Authority | Type | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 4(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 | Legal Provision | Cited to show the prescribed composition of State Boards. |
| Section 5(2) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 | Legal Provision | Cited to show the prescribed composition of State Boards. |
| Article 48A of the Constitution | Constitutional Provision | Cited to highlight the State’s duty to protect the environment. |
| Article 51A(g) of the Constitution | Constitutional Provision | Cited to highlight the citizens’ duty to protect the environment. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution | Constitutional Provision | Cited to emphasize the right to life and its connection to environmental protection. |
| Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Legal Provision | Cited to define the jurisdiction of the NGT. |
| Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Legal Provision | Cited to outline the relief, compensation, and restitution that the NGT can provide. |
| Section 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Legal Provision | Cited to define “substantial question relating to environment.” |
| Binay Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand (2002) 50 BLJR 2223 | Case Law | Cited to highlight instances where unqualified individuals were appointed to SPCBs. |
| Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India | Case Law | Cited to show the setting up of a Monitoring Committee by the Supreme Court. |
| Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015) 15 SCC 1 | Case Law | Cited to define the term “dispute”. |
| State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 SCC 1 | Case Law | Cited to emphasize the need for a deliberative process in appointments. |
| Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 | Case Law | Cited to highlight the importance of appointing competent, honest, and independent persons to public service commissions. |
| In R/o Dr Ram Ashray Yadav (2000) 4 SCC 309 | Case Law | Cited to highlight the importance of the credibility of an institution. |
| State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht (2007) 6 SCC 586 | Case Law | Cited to emphasize the need for restraint in judicial interventions. |
| Bhattacharya Committee (1984) | Committee Report | Cited for recommendations on the structure and functioning of SPCBs. |
| Belliappa Committee (1990) | Committee Report | Cited for recommendations on monitoring, reporting, and recruitment policies of SPCBs. |
| Administrative Staff College of India Study (1994) | Committee Report | Cited for recommendations on the implementation of environmental regulations by SPCBs. |
| Menon Committee | Committee Report | Cited for recommendations on the qualifications and appointment terms of SPCB members. |
| Tata Institute of Social Sciences Report (2013) | Report | Cited to show the lack of qualified individuals in SPCBs. |
Judgment
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | NGT exceeded its jurisdiction. | Accepted. The Court held that the NGT did not have the power to direct reconsideration of appointments. |
| Appellants | Appointment of SPCB members is not a “dispute”. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the appointment of SPCB members does not constitute a “dispute” under the NGT Act. |
| Appellants | NGT cannot provide relief in the form of reviewing appointments. | Accepted. The Court held that the NGT could not grant the relief that it did. |
| Appellants | NGT does not have the power to issue guidelines for appointments. | Accepted. The Court held that the NGT did not have the power to lay down guidelines for appointments. |
| NGT | The lack of qualified SPCB members is a substantial environmental issue. | Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged the concern but held that this does not fall under the jurisdiction of the NGT. |
The Supreme Court analyzed the authorities presented and the arguments made by both sides. The Court held that the NGT’s order was beyond its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the NGT’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes involving substantial environmental questions, and that the appointment of SPCB members does not fall under this category. The Court also stated that the NGT cannot grant the kind of relief it ordered, which was essentially a review of appointments.
The Court also held that the NGT did not have the power to lay down guidelines for appointments. The Court stated that while the NGT’s concerns were valid, the power to make such rules lies with the executive branch of the government.
The Court also considered the various committee reports and the importance of having qualified personnel in SPCBs. However, it held that the NGT was not the right forum to address this issue.
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Section 4(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 | Acknowledged as the relevant provision for the composition of State Boards. |
| Section 5(2) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 | Acknowledged as the relevant provision for the composition of State Boards. |
| Article 48A of the Constitution | Emphasized the State’s duty to protect the environment. |
| Article 51A(g) of the Constitution | Emphasized the citizens’ duty to protect the environment. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution | Emphasized the right to life and its connection to environmental protection. |
| Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Used to define the limits of the NGT’s jurisdiction. |
| Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Used to explain the relief the NGT can provide. |
| Section 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Used to define “substantial question relating to environment.” |
| Binay Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand (2002) 50 BLJR 2223 | Cited to highlight instances of unqualified appointments, reinforcing the need for qualified personnel. |
| Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India | Cited to show the setting up of a Monitoring Committee by the Supreme Court. |
| Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015) 15 SCC 1 | Cited to define the term “dispute,” clarifying that appointment issues are not “disputes” under the NGT Act. |
| State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 SCC 1 | Cited to emphasize the need for a deliberative process in appointments. |
| Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 | Cited to highlight the importance of appointing competent, honest, and independent persons to public service commissions. |
| In R/o Dr Ram Ashray Yadav (2000) 4 SCC 309 | Cited to highlight the importance of the credibility of an institution. |
| State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht (2007) 6 SCC 586 | Cited to emphasize the need for restraint in judicial interventions. |
| Bhattacharya Committee (1984) | Acknowledged for its recommendations on the structure and functioning of SPCBs. |
| Belliappa Committee (1990) | Acknowledged for its recommendations on monitoring, reporting, and recruitment policies of SPCBs. |
| Administrative Staff College of India Study (1994) | Acknowledged for its recommendations on the implementation of environmental regulations by SPCBs. |
| Menon Committee | Acknowledged for its recommendations on the qualifications and appointment terms of SPCB members. |
| Tata Institute of Social Sciences Report (2013) | Cited to show the lack of qualified individuals in SPCBs. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its interpretation of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Court emphasized that the NGT’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes involving substantial environmental questions. The Court also focused on the fact that the appointment of SPCB members does not constitute a “dispute” as intended under the Act.
The Court also considered the importance of having qualified personnel in SPCBs. However, it held that the NGT was not the right forum to address this issue. The Court emphasized that the power to make rules regarding appointments lies with the executive branch of the government.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Limitations of NGT | 50% |
| Nature of “Dispute” under NGT Act | 30% |
| Executive’s Power to Make Rules | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Does NGT have jurisdiction to direct reconsideration of appointments?
NGT’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes with substantial environmental questions.
Appointment of SPCB members is not a “dispute” under the NGT Act.
NGT cannot grant relief in the form of reviewing appointments.
Conclusion: NGT exceeded its jurisdiction.
Issue 2: Does NGT have power to lay down appointment guidelines?
Power to make rules regarding appointments lies with the executive.
NGT’s role is to adjudicate disputes, not to formulate rules.
Conclusion: NGT did not have the power to lay down guidelines.
Key Takeaways
- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) does not have the jurisdiction to direct State Governments to reconsider appointments to State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs).
- The NGT cannot lay down guidelines for the appointment of SPCB members.
- State Governments must frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules for the appointment of SPCB members.
- Appointments to SPCBs should be made with due consideration to the qualifications and expertise of the appointees.
- Public-spirited individuals can approach the High Court for a writ of quo warranto if unqualified individuals are appointed to SPCBs.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Executive in all the States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months. These rules should consider the institutional requirements of the SPCBs, the law laid down by statute, the Supreme Court, and the reports of various committees and authorities. The Court also directed that suitable professionals and experts should be appointed to the SPCBs.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) jurisdiction is limited to disputes involving substantial environmental questions, and that the appointment of members to State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) does not fall under this category. The Supreme Court clarified that the NGT cannot direct State Governments to reconsider appointments or lay down guidelines for future appointments.
This judgment clarifies the boundaries of the NGT’s jurisdiction and reinforces the importance of the executive branch’s role in making rules for appointments to statutory bodies. It also emphasizes the need for State Governments to ensure that qualified professionals and experts are appointed to SPCBs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order, holding that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the importance of environmental protection, but also the need to adhere to the defined jurisdictions of statutory bodies. The Court directed State Governments to frame appropriate rules for the appointment of SPCB members and urged them to appoint qualified experts.