2021 (10) TMI 527 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms NGT's suo motu power under National Green Tribunal Act, enabling swift environmental action

The SC held that the NGT possesses suo motu jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, enabling it to act beyond a purely adjudicatory ... Suo motu jurisdiction - jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal - exercise of jurisdiction under Section 14(1) without application - sui generis character of the NGT - purposive interpretation - precautionary principle - principles of natural justice - power to regulate procedure and secure the ends of justice - environmental justice and environmental equitySuo motu jurisdiction - jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal - exercise of jurisdiction under Section 14(1) without application - sui generis character of the NGT - purposive interpretation - principles of natural justice - power to regulate procedure and secure the ends of justice - NGT has power to take suo motu cognizance and initiate proceedings in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act, 2010. - HELD THAT: - The Act construed as a whole, read purposively and in light of its legislative history and object, entrusts the NGT with wide, multifaceted powers beyond mere adjudication. Section 14(1) confers jurisdiction where a substantial question relating to environment arises out of implementation of Schedule I enactments and does not expressly require an application to activate the Tribunal; subsection (2) and (3) operate as corollaries when an adjudicatory dispute or time-barred application is concerned. The Tribunal's procedural empowerment - including Rule 24, the ability to regulate its procedure, to mould relief, to apply principles such as the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, and the widened locus standi - supports a self-activating capability to address environmental exigencies. Such a construction accords with the sui generis character of the NGT, the object of providing efficacious, expert, and expeditious environmental remediation, and international and constitutional commitments to environmental protection. Exercise of suo motu power must, however, remain within the statutory environmental domain, observe procedural safeguards and the principles of natural justice, and afford notice and opportunity to persons likely to be affected; permissible triggers include media reports or communications which the Registry may convert into an office report to invite the Tribunal's action. [Paras 25, 37, 38, 40]The National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu power to initiate action within its statutory environmental mandate, subject to observance of natural justice and procedural safeguards.Final Conclusion: The appeals are delinked for separate hearing on merits; the Court declares that the NGT may, consistent with its statutory domain and after affording procedural fairness, initiate suo motu proceedings and the matters will be posted for further directions and fixture as indicated. Issues Involved:1. Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.Detailed Analysis:1. Suo Motu Jurisdiction of NGT:The primary issue in this case is whether the NGT can exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The NGT took suo motu cognizance based on an article highlighting environmental mismanagement. This led to a series of legal arguments about the Tribunal's powers.2. Arguments Against Suo Motu Power:Senior Counsel argued that as a statutory tribunal, the NGT cannot act on its own motion or exercise judicial review power akin to superior courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. They cited various judgments, including Standard Chartered Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and Transcore Vs. Union of India, to emphasize that tribunals like NGT have limited powers and cannot assume inherent powers.3. Arguments Supporting Suo Motu Power:Contrary views were presented by other Senior Counsel who argued that the NGT, given its specialized role and the history of its incorporation, should have the power to act suo motu. They emphasized the NGT's broad jurisdiction and its role in addressing environmental issues, which necessitates proactive measures.4. Role of Amicus Curiae:Mr. Anand Grover, appointed as Amicus Curiae, acknowledged the NGT's wide jurisdiction but opined that the NGT should not act suo motu without an external trigger. However, he conceded that even a letter could empower the NGT to act.5. Government's Stand:The Additional Solicitor General argued that the NGT does not have suo motu power as it was not conferred under the NGT Act. However, she agreed that the NGT could act on receiving a letter, similar to the Amicus Curiae's view.6. Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:The judgment delved into various precedents and statutory interpretations. It highlighted that the NGT Act's provisions and the legislative intent behind its creation suggest a broad and proactive role for the NGT. The court referred to the Law Commission's 186th Report and the Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act, emphasizing the need for a specialized body to handle environmental issues effectively.7. Purposive Interpretation:The court adopted a purposive interpretation of the NGT Act, focusing on the legislative intent to create a multifunctional body capable of addressing environmental concerns comprehensively. The court cited principles from statutory interpretation treatises and past judgments to support this approach.8. Non-Adjudicatory Roles of NGT:The judgment highlighted the NGT's broader roles beyond adjudication, including preventive, remedial, and ameliorative functions. It emphasized that the NGT's mandate is not limited to resolving disputes but also includes taking proactive measures to protect the environment.9. Unique Nature of NGT:The court acknowledged the NGT's unique role compared to other tribunals, given its broad jurisdiction and the need to address complex environmental issues. It emphasized that the NGT should have the flexibility to act proactively, including exercising suo motu powers.10. Environmental Justice and Equity:The judgment discussed the concepts of environmental justice and equity, highlighting the disproportionate impact of environmental harm on marginalized communities. It stressed the need for the NGT to act proactively to address such concerns and ensure fair distribution of environmental protections.11. Conclusion:The court concluded that the NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction. It emphasized that the NGT must act proactively to address environmental issues and cannot remain a mute spectator. The judgment declared that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act.12. Directions for Further Proceedings:The court directed that the cases be delinked and heard separately on merits, with specific instructions for the registry to post the matters for further hearing.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed that the NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the NGT Act, emphasizing the Tribunal's broad and proactive role in addressing environmental issues. The judgment highlighted the need for a purposive interpretation of the NGT Act to fulfill its legislative intent and ensure effective environmental protection.