LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) can delegate its adjudicatory functions to an administrative expert committee.
CASE TYPE: Environmental Law
Case Name: Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others
[Judgment Date]: 21 January 2022
Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 44
Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a specialized environmental court delegate its core decision-making powers to a committee? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the improper disposal of municipal solid waste. The Court clarified that while expert committees can assist with fact-finding, the final adjudication must remain with the National Green Tribunal (NGT). This case highlights the importance of the NGT’s role in environmental protection and ensuring accountability.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal against a decision of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The appellants, environmental organizations and individuals, had filed an Original Application (OA) in July 2014, raising concerns about the dumping of unsegregated and untreated Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) at an open landfill site in Khajod Village, Surat. The landfill, operated by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC), covered 188 hectares and was surrounded by 35 villages.
The appellants alleged that the SMC was violating the Municipal Solid Waste (Handling and Management) Rules 2000 and the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998. They claimed that the open dumping of waste was causing severe air and water pollution, damaging the local ecology, and affecting the health of nearby residents and livestock. The appellants sought the following:
- ✓ Restraining the dumping of MSW at the landfill site.
- ✓ Restoration of the environment in the surrounding areas.
- ✓ Restitution of the landfill site to its original condition.
- ✓ Compensation to those affected in the nearby villages.
- ✓ Implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 2014 | Original Application (OA) filed by the appellants before the NGT. |
| 8 August 2014 | The Western Zone Bench of the NGT issued notice. |
| 24 January 2003 | Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) started dumping 850 Metric Tonnes of waste per day. |
| 16 January 2014 | The extent of dumping increased to 1600 Metric Tonnes of waste per day. |
| 20 March 2015 | NGT noted that “ prima facie there is ring of truth in the averments made by the Applicants, to indicate that MSW plant, is being mismanaged” and that the burning of the untreated MSW was causing severe air pollution affecting the health of the residents of the nearby villages. Interim directions were issued to prevent this from taking place during the pendency of the OA. |
| 22 December 2015 | NGT reproached SMC for not preparing a proper action plan and audit for the management of MSW in the district of Surat. |
| 7 March 2016 | NGT directed the Commissioner of SMC to be present and to provide a statement on the issues related to waste management. |
| 16 May 2017 | NGT noted that SMC had filed an affidavit indicating the action plan which it proposed to execute for handling the problem of MSW. |
| 19 September 2017 | A statement was made on behalf of SMC that it is under an obligation to comply with the SWM Rules and that the site at Khajod is designated for a landfill, an MSW processing plant and a waste-to-energy plant. |
| 26 September 2017 | An undertaking was filed on behalf of SMC by the Municipal Commissioner setting out the steps which would be taken for dealing with MSW. |
| 6 November 2017 | NGT set out that it would be hearing SMC on the qualified nature of the undertaking which was furnished by it, having regard to the SWM Rules and on the proposed use of the Khajod landfill site despite its potential as a landfill site being concluded. |
| 5 December 2017 | NGT dealt with the issue of quantification of compensation to the farmers due to the damage caused by the burning of solid waste and ground water pollution. |
| 2 July 2018 | NGT issued directions stating that the submissions which were urged before it by SMC were unacceptable. The NGT declined to accept the contention that the waste-to-energy plant could only be completed by December 2019, and directed that it ought to be completed by March 2018. |
| 17 July 2018 | NGT noted that SMC’s current action plan prima facie did not fulfill the requirements of Clause J of Schedule-I of the SWM Rules in relation to closure and rehabilitation of old dumping sites and legacy waste. |
| 28 September 2018 | The Principal Bench of the NGT disposed of the OA, directing the appellants to approach a committee. |
| 31 August 2018 | NGT passed judgment in OA No 606 of 2018, setting up Apex, Regional, and State Level Committees for monitoring the implementation of the SWM Rules. |
| 21 January 2022 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NGT order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Western Zone Bench of the NGT had been actively monitoring the case since August 2014, issuing several interim directions to the SMC. These directions included measures to prevent the burning of waste, improve waste management, and submit action plans. The NGT had also directed the SMC to take steps for the closure of the Khajod dumping site and to set up waste processing plants. However, on 28 September 2018, the Principal Bench of the NGT disposed of the OA, stating that the matter was covered by another case (OA No 606 of 2018) where the NGT had constituted Apex, Regional, and State Level Committees to monitor the implementation of the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules. The appellants were directed to represent their case before the appropriate committee.
Legal Framework
The case is primarily governed by the following legal provisions:
- ✓ Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010: This section grants the NGT jurisdiction over civil cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment, arising from the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I of the Act.
- ✓ Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010: This section empowers the NGT to provide relief and compensation to victims of pollution, order restitution of damaged property, and order restitution of the environment. Specifically, Section 15(1)(c) allows for restitution of the environment.
- ✓ Environment (Protection) Act 1986: The Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 were notified under Sections 3, 6, and 25 of this Act, which is Entry 5 in Schedule I of the NGT Act.
Section 14 of the NGT Act states:
“14. Tribunal to settle disputes. —(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.”
Section 15(1) of the NGT Act states:
“15. Relief, compensation and restitution. —(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,— (a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance); (b) for restitution of property damaged; (c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.”
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- ✓ The appellants argued that the NGT’s decision to relegate them to a committee was inappropriate, given the progress made by the Western Zone Bench of the NGT in addressing the case.
- ✓ They contended that the NGT is specifically entrusted with the jurisdiction to provide restitution and award compensation, and therefore, it was not proper to delegate this decision to a committee.
Respondents’ (SMC) Arguments:
- ✓ The SMC argued that the appellants had not provided any material to support their claim for compensation.
- ✓ They contended that the appellants had the option to present their grievances before the appropriate committee.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants: Relegation to Committee Inappropriate |
|
| Respondents (SMC): No Basis for Compensation |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- ✓ Whether the Principal Bench of the NGT correctly directed the appellants to approach a committee set up by it, rather than continuing with the proceedings in the OA.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the NGT can delegate its adjudicatory functions to a committee? | The Supreme Court held that the NGT cannot delegate its core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. While expert committees can assist in fact-finding, the final adjudication must be done by the NGT itself. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation, (2019) 18 SCC 494 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act grants broad powers to the NGT for environmental restoration. |
| Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to highlight that courts should be cautious in rejecting the opinion of expert committees unless their decision is arbitrary or mala fide. |
| State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 108 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to highlight that courts should be cautious in rejecting the opinion of expert committees unless their decision is arbitrary or mala fide. |
| Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to affirm that the NGT is an expert adjudicatory body on environmental matters. |
| Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 669 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to reiterate that the NGT cannot delegate its adjudicatory functions to expert committees. |
| Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 | – | This provision was discussed to establish the jurisdiction of the NGT over environmental disputes. |
| Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 | – | This provision was discussed to establish the powers of the NGT to provide relief, compensation, and restitution. |
| Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 | – | This provision was discussed to highlight the source of power for the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the NGT had erred in delegating its adjudicatory functions to a committee. The Court emphasized that while expert committees can assist the NGT in fact-finding, the final decision-making power rests with the NGT itself. The Court noted that the NGT is a specialized body with both judicial and expert members, and it is equipped to handle environmental disputes. The Court set aside the NGT’s order and restored the original application to the NGT’s file for further adjudication.
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants: Relegation to Committee Inappropriate | The Court agreed with the appellants, stating that the NGT cannot delegate its adjudicatory functions. |
| Respondents (SMC): No Basis for Compensation | The Court did not address the merits of the compensation claim, but emphasized that the NGT must adjudicate the matter, and the committee cannot be a substitute. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ The Supreme Court relied on Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation [(2019) 18 SCC 494]* to highlight the broad powers of the NGT under Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act for environmental restoration.
- ✓ The Court cited Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh [(2010) 8 SCC 372]* and State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd. [(2020) 9 SCC 108]* to note that courts should be cautious in rejecting the opinion of expert committees unless their decision is arbitrary or mala fide, but it also clarified that the NGT cannot delegate its adjudicatory role to committees.
- ✓ The Court cited Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [(2019) 15 SCC 401]* to affirm that the NGT is an expert adjudicatory body on environmental matters.
- ✓ The Court relied on Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 669]* to reiterate that the NGT cannot delegate its adjudicatory functions to expert committees.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated to administrative committees. The Court emphasized the following:
- ✓ The NGT is a specialized body with both judicial and expert members, designed to handle environmental disputes.
- ✓ While expert committees can assist in fact-finding, the final adjudication must be done by the NGT itself.
- ✓ Delegating adjudicatory functions undermines the NGT’s role as an expert adjudicatory body.
- ✓ The Court was concerned about the loss of time and the back-burner status of crucial environmental issues due to the improper delegation.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| NGT’s adjudicatory role | 40% |
| NGT as an expert body | 30% |
| Time loss and delay | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
NGT’s Adjudicatory Function
Delegation of Adjudication to Committee
NGT is an expert body
Improper Delegation
Order Set Aside
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have allowed the delegation of adjudicatory functions to the committee. The Court’s reasoning was clear and focused on the core principle that the NGT must exercise its own adjudicatory powers.
The Supreme Court stated:
“Adjudicatory functions assigned to courts and tribunals cannot be hived off to administrative committees.”
“The NGT has in the present case abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted judicial functions to an administrative expert committee.”
“The discharge of its functions cannot be obviated by tasking committees to carry out a function which vests in the tribunal.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The NGT cannot delegate its core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees.
- ✓ Expert committees can assist the NGT in fact-finding, but the final decision must be made by the NGT.
- ✓ The NGT is an expert adjudicatory body with both judicial and expert members, equipped to handle environmental disputes.
- ✓ Delegating adjudicatory functions undermines the NGT’s role and can lead to delays in resolving environmental issues.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Principal Bench of the NGT and restored the original application (OA No 81 of 2014 (WZ)) to the file of the NGT. The NGT was directed to commence the hearing of the proceedings from the stage that was reached before the impugned order was passed. The Court also directed that the case may be heard by the Bench assigned with the requisite jurisdiction.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot delegate its core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. While expert committees can assist in fact-finding, the final decision-making power rests with the NGT itself. This reaffirms the NGT’s role as an expert adjudicatory body and clarifies the limits of delegation of its powers. This judgment reinforces the principle that specialized tribunals must exercise their own adjudicatory functions and cannot transfer this responsibility to administrative bodies.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust vs. State of Gujarat clarifies that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot delegate its adjudicatory functions to administrative committees. This decision underscores the NGT’s role as a specialized environmental court and ensures that it retains its decision-making authority. The case highlights the importance of the NGT in environmental protection and accountability.