Supreme Court sets aside NGT order for violating natural justice in Singrauli Thermal Power case (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 618

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna J., Prashant Kumar Mishra J.

Can a judicial body issue binding directions without giving the affected parties an opportunity to present their case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors. The Court found that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the appellants to object to an expert committee report before issuing directions. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings, even in specialized tribunals.

Case Background

The case originated from a petition filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) concerning environmental violations by several thermal power plants and industries in the Singrauli and Sonebhadra areas. The NGT constituted an expert committee to investigate the allegations of pollution and environmental damage caused by these entities.

The committee submitted its report, which included recommendations for remedial action. However, the NGT issued directions based on this report without giving the affected parties, including the Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station, an opportunity to file objections or present their side of the story. The appellants argued that this was a violation of natural justice.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

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

“19.(1) 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 provision mandates that while the NGT is not bound by the strict procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that this includes providing a fair opportunity to all parties to be heard and to present their objections to any findings or recommendations that may affect them.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the NGT violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing them to object to the expert committee’s report.
• They contended that the NGT uploaded the report on its website on 15.01.2022 and issued directions on 18.01.2022, giving them insufficient time to review and respond to the report.
• The appellants submitted that the NGT did not consider the pros and cons of the recommendations made by the expert committee before issuing directions.
• They argued that the directions were issued without considering the specific circumstances of each appellant.
• The appellants relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Sanghar Zuber Ismail vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Another [(2021) SCC Online SC 669] and Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan vs. State of Gujarat [2022 SCC online SC 120] to support their claim of violation of natural justice.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents supported the arguments of the appellants, acknowledging the violation of natural justice.
• They also pointed out that there were two reports filed, and the NGT should have considered them to check for any contradictions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to the appellants to object to the expert committee’s report before issuing directions?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sanghar Zuber Ismail vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Another [(2021) SCC Online SC 669]* to emphasize that the NGT must apply its mind to the substantive grounds of challenge and cannot merely base its conclusions on statements made by the project proponent. The Court reiterated that the NGT’s adjudicatory function cannot be delegated to committees.
• The Supreme Court cited Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan vs. State of Gujarat [2022 SCC online SC 120]* to criticize the practice of delegating core adjudication to joint committees. The Court reiterated that expert committees assist the NGT but cannot substitute its adjudicatory role.
• The Court emphasized that while the NGT is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, it is still bound by the principles of natural justice as per Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010*.
• The Supreme Court cited Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India (2023) SCC Online 366* to highlight the essential components of natural justice, including notice, contents of notice, reports of inquiry, and materials available for perusal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the NGT, while being an expert body, must still adhere to basic procedural fairness. The lack of opportunity for the appellants to object to the expert committee’s report was a critical factor in the Court’s decision to set aside the NGT order.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents, particularly the requirement of natural justice. The factual aspects of the case, such as the specific environmental violations, were secondary to the procedural impropriety of the NGT’s decision-making process.

The Court considered and rejected the NGT’s approach of relying solely on the expert committee’s report without giving the affected parties a chance to respond. The Court emphasized that the NGT’s adjudicatory function cannot be delegated to expert committees and that the NGT must independently assess the facts and arguments presented before it.

The Supreme Court held that the NGT’s order was improper due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court stated:

“Thus, this is a clear case of there being non compliance with the principles of natural justice.”

The Court also stated:

“The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act.”

The Court further observed:

“But we find that in the instant case the report of the expert Committee as well as the recommendations have been made the basis of the directions and such an approach is improper.”

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.
• The NGT, while being an expert body, is still required to provide a fair hearing to all parties involved.
• Expert committee reports are only advisory and do not substitute the adjudicatory role of the NGT.
• The NGT cannot delegate its core adjudicatory functions to expert committees.
• The judgment underscores the need for procedural fairness in environmental law cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the NGT and remanded the matter back to the NGT for re-consideration from the stage of the recommendations filed by the expert committee. The Court directed the NGT to:

• Permit the appellants to file their objections, if any, to the recommendations of the expert committee.
• Consider the objections, if any, filed to the recommendations.
• Dispose of the applications in accordance with law and after giving a reasonable opportunity to all parties.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the National Green Tribunal (NGT), while not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, must still adhere to the principles of natural justice, which includes providing a fair opportunity to all parties to be heard and to present their objections to any findings or recommendations that may affect them. This judgment reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness in environmental law cases and clarifies that expert committee reports are only advisory and do not substitute the adjudicatory role of the NGT.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors. underscores the critical importance of natural justice in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court set aside the NGT’s order because it violated these principles by not allowing the appellants to object to the expert committee’s report. The matter has been remanded to the NGT for reconsideration, ensuring that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. This judgment serves as a reminder that even specialized tribunals must adhere to basic procedural fairness.

Category:

Parent Category: Environmental Law

Child Categories:

• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
• Principles of Natural Justice
• Environmental Pollution
• Thermal Power Plants
• Fly Ash Management

Parent Category: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Child Category: Section 19(1), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Singrauli Super Thermal Power case?

A: The main issue was whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the affected parties to object to an expert committee report before issuing directions.

Q: What are the principles of natural justice?

A: The principles of natural justice include the right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, and the right to present one’s case. These principles ensure that decisions are made fairly and impartially.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order because the NGT did not allow the appellants to file objections to the expert committee report before issuing directions, which is a violation of natural justice.

Q: What is the role of an expert committee in NGT proceedings?

A: An expert committee assists the NGT by providing technical expertise and factual clarity. However, the NGT cannot delegate its adjudicatory function to the committee and must independently assess the facts and arguments.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for future environmental law cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in environmental law cases and clarifies that the NGT must adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties.