Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Due to Improper Bench Composition: Talli Gram Panchayat vs. Union of India (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 600
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a single member of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) validly decide a case when the law mandates a bench of both judicial and expert members? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a challenge to an environmental clearance. The Court set aside the NGT order, emphasizing that a single-member bench cannot exercise jurisdiction when the law requires a bench consisting of both judicial and expert members. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around an environmental clearance granted to Ultratech Cement Limited on 5 January 2017 for limestone mining in Gujarat. The Talli Gram Panchayat, the appellant, challenged this clearance before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), citing ecological concerns and lack of proper consent from landholders. The appellant’s appeal was delayed, leading to an application for condonation of delay. The NGT initially dismissed the condonation application by a single-member bench on 29 January 2018. This order was later challenged by the appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Talli Gram Panchayat initially filed an appeal against the environmental clearance granted to Ultratech Cement Limited. This appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, as it was filed beyond the prescribed 30-day period. The NGT, after hearing the matter, sought clarification on the accessibility of the environmental clearance on the website, as per the ruling in Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India. Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) amended the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011, allowing for single-member benches in exceptional circumstances. The Chairperson of the NGT then constituted single-member benches due to a shortage of members. This led to a challenge in the Supreme Court, where the Attorney General assured that the rule would be rectified. Despite this assurance, a single-member bench of the NGT dismissed the appellant’s condonation of delay application. The Supreme Court eventually intervened, directing that single-member benches not be constituted. The NGT then dismissed the recall application and the condonation of delay application, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 4(4)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which stipulates that each bench of the NGT should consist of an equal number of judicial and expert members. The proviso to Rule 3 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011, introduced by a notification, allowed the Chairperson to constitute single-member benches in exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 states:

“The number of expert members of a Bench dealing with appeals or applications shall, in each case, be equal to the number of judicial members of such Bench.”

The proviso to Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules, as amended by the notification reads as follows:

“[Provided that in exceptional circumstances the Chairperson may constitute a single Member Bench]”

The Supreme Court also considered the principle that delegated legislation (like the rules) must be in conformity with the parent enactment (the NGT Act).

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the order passed by the single-member bench on 29 January 2018 was null and void because it contravened Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010.
• The appellant contended that the lawyer who was previously engaged returned the file due to his appointment as a Government Advocate, and this was communicated to the Tribunal.
• The appellant argued that the new lawyer was not given notice of the hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.
• The appellant also argued that the environmental clearance was not properly published, as it was not made accessible and downloadable on the website, as per the interpretation in Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that the environmental clearance was communicated on 5 January 2017, and the NGT cannot condone a delay beyond 90 days, even with sufficient cause, as per Section 16 of the NGT Act 2010.
• The respondent argued that the appellant was negligent for not appearing before the Tribunal on multiple occasions.
• The respondent claimed that the single-member bench was not coram non judice (not having proper jurisdiction) at the time of the order on 29 January 2018, since the Supreme Court’s order against single-member benches was passed two days later, on 31 January 2018.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a single member of the Tribunal could have dealt with the proceedings and dismissed the applications for restoration and for condonation of delay on 29 January 2018 after the Attorney General of India had assured this Court on 11 January 2018 that the proviso to Rule 3 would be rectified in consonance with the Act and the judgments of this Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1: This case was cited by the appellant to argue that the environmental clearance was not properly published, as it was not made accessible and downloadable on the website.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 4(4)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section mandates that each bench of the NGT should consist of an equal number of judicial and expert members.
• Rule 3 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011: This rule, as amended, allowed the Chairperson to constitute single-member benches in exceptional circumstances.
• Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section deals with the limitation period for filing appeals before the NGT.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court noted the appellant’s reliance on Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India [2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1]* regarding the proper publication of environmental clearances.
• The court held that the single-member bench was in violation of Section 4(4)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
• The court held that the proviso to Rule 3 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011 was not in conformity with the parent enactment.
• The court noted the respondent’s reliance on Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 regarding the limitation period for filing appeals and kept the issue open for the NGT to decide.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that delegated legislation must conform to the parent enactment. The Court noted that the proviso to Rule 3 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011, which allowed for single-member benches, was inconsistent with Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010. The Court also considered the assurance given by the Attorney General that the rule would be rectified. The fact that the single member abstained from passing orders in other cases due to the stay on single member bench, but passed order in this case, also weighed in the mind of the court. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that benches are constituted as per the law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the single-member bench was valid because the order was passed before the Court’s explicit stay on single-member benches. However, the Court rejected this, emphasizing that the Attorney General’s assurance implicitly meant that the rule would not be implemented until rectified. The Court held that the assumption of jurisdiction by a single-member bench was vitiated and that the single member could not have passed an order in view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The single-member bench was in violation of Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010.
• The Attorney General’s assurance to rectify the rule implied a stay on its implementation.
• The single member of the NGT had himself abstained from passing orders in other cases due to stay on single member bench.
• The principle that delegated legislation must conform to the parent enactment was violated.

The Supreme Court stated, “Implicit in this is the settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power.” The Court also observed, “The phrase “in the meantime’ elucidates that during the time the executive deliberates on the dissonance of the Rule with the Act and judgments, there shall be a restraint on its implementation.” Further, the Court noted, “The assumption of jurisdiction by a single member Bench clearly stands vitiated.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A single-member bench of the National Green Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction when the law mandates a bench consisting of both judicial and expert members.
• Delegated legislation, such as rules, must be in conformity with the parent enactment.
• Assurances made by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court carry significant weight and imply a restraint on the implementation of the rule under challenge.
• The orders passed by the single member bench were held to be invalid, even if passed before the explicit stay order of the Supreme Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the NGT dated 16 July 2021 and the original order of the NGT dated 29 January 2018. Appeal No 36 of 2017 was restored to the file of the NGT for disposal afresh. All rights and contentions of the parties, including the issue of limitation, were kept open.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a single-member bench of the NGT cannot exercise jurisdiction when the law mandates a bench consisting of both judicial and expert members. This judgment reinforces the principle that delegated legislation must conform to the parent enactment and that assurances made by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court carry significant weight. The Supreme Court clarified that the orders passed by the single member bench were held to be invalid, even if passed before the explicit stay order of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Talli Gram Panchayat vs. Union of India underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements regarding the composition of judicial bodies. The Court’s emphasis on the principle that delegated legislation must conform to the parent enactment ensures the integrity of the judicial process. The judgment clarifies that a single-member bench cannot exercise jurisdiction when the law mandates a bench of judicial and expert members, and that such orders are invalid.