Written by Aadya kumar1, University School of law and legal studies,GGSIPU Dwarka
Introduction
In today’s world, where the threat of environmental destruction is more pressing than ever, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) stands out as a symbol of hope—or a source of debate, depending on who you talk to. Created to uphold environmental conservation and deliver swift justice for environmental offenses, the NGT holds considerable influence in conserving India’s environmental terrain. However, the question persists: is this tribunal effectively carrying out its mission, or is it simply a superficial green cover-up, concealing underlying systemic problems? With the escalation of climate emergencies and increased public attention, the importance of governance has never been more crucial—or more contentious.
Accessing environmental justice has been a right in rem, and the saying of Ibi jus ibi remedium is illustrated by the creation of the National Green Tribunal in India. Amid rumours of a likely amendment in the NGT Act by the Union Ministry of Environment,Forests and Climate Change to clip its wings , it has become important to review NGT’s performance.
Administrative Background
The preamble of the NGT Act of 2010 firmly establishes that the right to a healthy environment is essential and unequivocally intertwined with the right to life, underscoring the critical role of judicial interpretation in protecting these fundamental rights. The preamble of a statute serves as a permissible tool for construction, aimed at articulating the scope, objectives, and purpose of the act more thoroughly than the long title. It functions as a guideline to discern the legislative intent and aids in providing a sound legislative interpretation of its provisions to the act’s objectives. The preamble acts as a precept to gather the legislative intention and helps to give prudent legislative interpretation to its provisions to achieve the objective of the act.
Underpinning the Vulnerabilities of the Tribunal
From a bird’s-eye view, the NGT encounters a figurative Achilles’ heel in its formation. The tribunal’s capacity to provide authentic justice is being questioned, particularly due to its position as the most recent tribunal. Major concerns have arisen regarding its case management, leading the Supreme Court to issue essential and direct critiques of the inherent deficiencies in the tribunal’s judicial capabilities.
Recently, the Supreme Court has concentrated on due diligence, nullifying the orders issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and reversing the ₹25 crore penalty decision against Benzo Chem. The court highlighted that the evaluation of penalties for environmental harm should not be linked to a company’s income, criticizing the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for its insufficient consideration and breach of natural justice principles. Voicing “deep anguish” over the NGT’s reasoning in associating the penalty amount with Benzo Chem’s publicly disclosed revenue range of ₹100 crore to ₹500 crore, the bench clarified that revenue generation and environmental damages are not connected.
“The generation of revenue would have no nexus with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for environmental damages,” the bench comprising justices Bhushan R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan underscored that such a methodology is alien to established legal principles, held in the November 27 judgment.
There have been instances where, frequently, the NGT pegs initial compensation at 5% of the project cost without regard to the actual amount of environmental damage. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has openly acknowledged its reliance on speculative judgments rather than evidence-based assessments, revealing a lapse in its duty to conduct a thorough scientific analysis of the actual extent of environmental damage. This lackadaisical approach towards the credibility of judicial reasoning raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of environmental protection efforts. As interpreted in a manner wherein the potential polluters are likely to continue with a project if it can be reasonably profitable after accounting for a 5% environmental compensation fee. This is highly likely to lead to a situation where the polluter pays principle will be reversed to become ‘pay and pollute’ and cause a potential miscarriage of justice.
From a geographical standpoint, the NGT is functional in five locations. New Delhi being the principal seat of the Tribunal (Principal Bench), and Bhopal (Central Zone), Pune (West Zone), Kolkata (East Zone), and Chennai (South Zone) are the other seats of the Tribunal as zonal benches. The establishment of zonal benches allows individuals from various regions of the country to access the tribunal; however, the innovative aspect of these zonal benches is often overshadowed when it comes to conveying the presence of the Green Knight, thereby rendering vital access to environmental justice a complex legal process.
A poignant example of this is in Jharkhand’s Chaibasa district, where the Bindrai Institute for Research and Action (“BIRSA”), along with the Occupational Health and Safety Centre (“OHSC”), approached the NGT to address environmental damage caused by abandoned asbestos mines. In doing so, the convener of BIRSA pointed out that, “We do not have much knowledge about NGT. For a tribal activist based in a remote location, it is extremely difficult to travel to Kolkata and find accommodation there.”
Such a disconnect brings light to how the socio-economic disparities act as a roadblock for tribal activists to access the NGT. Another tribal activist, Dayamani Barla, who has worked to curb illegal mining and displacement, has said that she does not know about the NGT and questions why she would be required to travel to Kolkata to address a local environmental issue in her residential place.
Conclusion
In a fair evaluation, it can be stated that NGT is implementing courageous and impactful measures for environmental conservation and safeguarding the ecological rights of Indian citizens. Issuing a range of directives that influence every region of the nation, NGT continues to highlight numerous environmental infringements while taking action against those responsible for harming the environment. Reflecting on the period since its inception, it becomes evident that the tribunal’s integrity is compromised by various vulnerabilities and fallacies that the NGT must address to sustain its significance in the forthcoming decade.
- Aadya kumar is an avid legal researcher in her third year of law school,pursuing BBALLB honours programme and commits her free time to musing over germane policy lacunaes. ↩︎