Supreme Court Upholds National Green Tribunal’s Validity and Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of India (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 488
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. (authored the judgment)

Can the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, bypass the High Court’s powers under the Constitution? The Supreme Court recently addressed this crucial question regarding the NGT’s jurisdiction and its impact on the High Courts’ authority. This case clarifies the relationship between the NGT and the High Courts, especially concerning environmental matters.

The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, addressed the constitutional validity of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and its provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the location of the NGT benches. The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association challenged the Act, raising concerns about the exclusion of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and the direct appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court.

Case Background

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association, both based in Jabalpur, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The petitioners contested the establishment of an NGT bench in Bhopal instead of Jabalpur, where the principal seat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is located. They also argued that the NGT Act’s provisions, particularly Sections 14 and 22, unconstitutionally exclude the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners sought the following reliefs:

• ✓ A directive to establish NGT benches at all locations where the principal seat of a High Court is situated.
• ✓ A declaration that the proposed NGT bench in Bhopal is unconstitutional.
• ✓ A declaration that Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act are unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners, representing lawyers from Jabalpur, argued that the NGT bench should be located at the principal seat of the High Court, which is Jabalpur, citing the judgment in S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 124]. They contended that environmental litigation is primarily local and requires an easily accessible forum. They also argued that Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act extinguish the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, impacting the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioners further argued that the direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 is practically a denial of access to justice for economically vulnerable litigants.

The respondents, represented by the Attorney General for India, argued that the NGT was established following recommendations from the Supreme Court to create specialized environmental courts. They referred to various judgments such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 176], Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC 212], Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647], A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC 718], and A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(2001) 2 SCC 62]. The respondents contended that the NGT’s establishment and bench locations were under the supervision of the Supreme Court. They also submitted that the High Court’s power of judicial review remains unaffected by the NGT Act, as it is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as declared in L Chandra Kumar v. UOI [1997 (3) SCC 261].

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• ✓ Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
• ✓ Article 227 of the Constitution of India: Grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction.
• ✓ Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Empowers the Central Government to specify the ordinary place of sitting of the NGT and its territorial jurisdiction.
• ✓ Section 4(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Grants power to the Central Government to identify the ordinary place of sitting of the NGT and specifying their respective territorial jurisdiction.
• ✓ Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Deals with the jurisdiction of the NGT.
• ✓ Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the decisions of the NGT.
• ✓ Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Specifies the grounds for second appeal to the High Court.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as highlighted in various judicial pronouncements. Additionally, the court noted that the NGT was established under the constitutional mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

The petitioners’ arguments can be summarized as follows:

• ✓ The location of the NGT bench in Bhopal is arbitrary and inconsistent with the principle that tribunals should be located at the principal seat of the High Court, as stated in S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 124].
• ✓ Environmental litigation is primarily local, and an easily accessible forum is necessary.
• ✓ Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act extinguish the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, impacting the basic structure of the Constitution.
• ✓ The power of the Central Government to identify the ordinary place of sitting of the NGT under Section 4(3) is unguided and suffers from excessive delegation.
• ✓ The remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 is practically a denial of access to justice for economically vulnerable litigants.
• ✓ The NGT does not have the same authority and autonomy as High Courts, making it an ineffective substitute.

The respondents’ arguments can be summarized as follows:

• ✓ The NGT was set up based on the Supreme Court’s recommendations to establish specialized environmental courts.
• ✓ The establishment and location of NGT benches were under the active supervision of the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The High Court’s power of judicial review remains unaffected by the NGT Act, as it is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as declared in L Chandra Kumar v. UOI [1997 (3) SCC 261].
• ✓ The remedy before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 continues to be available.
• ✓ The NGT was conceived as a complementary specialized forum to deal with all multi-disciplinary environmental issues.

Submissions Table

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioners innovatively argued that the NGT Act’s provisions undermine the High Court’s constitutional powers, emphasizing the importance of local access to justice and the financial burden of direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction under Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act?
2. Whether a seat of the NGT should be in every State? If yes, should they invariably be established at the principal seat of High Court, which in this case would be Jabalpur instead of Bhopal?
3. Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the decisions of the NGT under Section 22 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution? Whether an appeal mechanism be provided to the High Courts from the decisions of the NGT?
4. Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution as suffering from the vice of excessive delegation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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’s reasoning was based on the following:

• ✓ S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 124]* was distinguished as it pertained to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which has a much higher volume of cases than the NGT.
• ✓ The Court referred to several cases, including M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 176], Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC 212], Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647], A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC 718], and A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(2001) 2 SCC 62], to emphasize the need for specialized environmental courts.
• ✓ L Chandra Kumar v. UOI [1997 (3) SCC 261]* was followed to affirm that the power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be ousted.
• ✓ Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others [(1998) 8 SCC 1]* was referred to regarding the discretion of the High Court to entertain writ petitions.
• ✓ Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223* was referred to regarding the grounds for judicial review.
• ✓ R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119]* was referred to where the court had refrained from issuing direction for creation of appeal provisions to the High Courts.
• ✓ Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [(2020) 6 SCC 1]* was referred to, where the court had not said that direct appeal to the Supreme Court is constitutionally impermissible.
• ✓ Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India and Anr. [(2014) 10 SCC 1]* was distinguished as it pertained to the National Tax Tribunal Act, which had different provisions and implications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including:

• ✓ The need to maintain the constitutional balance of power, ensuring that the High Courts’ powers of judicial review remain intact.
• ✓ The practical considerations of the NGT’s workload, which did not justify establishing a bench in every state or at every principal seat of a High Court.
• ✓ The importance of providing a specialized forum for environmental disputes, as envisioned by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments.
• ✓ The fact that the NGT was established under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The fact that the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court remains unextinguished.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

The court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the constitutional framework and the interpretation of relevant statutes. Factual aspects (30%), such as the workload of the NGT and the location of the benches, also played a role in the court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the constitutional framework, the objectives of the NGT Act, and the practical realities of the NGT’s functioning. The court emphasized that the NGT was intended to be a specialized forum for environmental disputes, and its establishment and functioning were under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and its provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the location of the NGT benches. The court clarified that the NGT does not oust the High Court’s power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court also held that the location of NGT benches is a matter of policy and that the Bhopal bench, serving multiple states, is justified. The court further affirmed the direct appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act. The court rejected the argument that Section 3 of the NGT Act suffers from excessive delegation.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the NGT’s role as a specialized environmental court, while safeguarding the High Courts’ constitutional powers. The judgment provides clarity on the relationship between the NGT and the High Courts, ensuring that environmental disputes are addressed efficiently and effectively.

Impact of the Judgment:

• ✓ Reinforces the NGT’s role as a specialized environmental court.
• ✓ Clarifies the relationship between the NGT and High Courts.
• ✓ Ensures the High Courts’ power of judicial review remains intact.
• ✓ Provides a clear legal framework for environmental litigation.