Supreme Court Criticises NGT's Trend Of Passing Ex-Parte Orders Imposing Penalties, Says Tribunal Must Act With 'Procedural Integrity'

Recently, the Supreme Court voiced its discontent with the National Green Tribunal's practice of passing ex parte orders and imposing damages. The judgment, authored by Justice PS Narasimha, has marked that such unilateral decision-making 'has regrettably become a prevailing norm.' “The National Green Tribunal's recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a prevailing norm. In its zealous quest for justice, the Tribunal must tread carefully to avoid the oversight of propriety. The practice of ex parte orders and the imposition of damages amounting to crores of rupees, have proven to be a counterproductive force in the broader mission of environmental safeguarding.,” the Court opined.The Court said that such orders have consistently faced stays from the Supreme Court."It is imperative for the Tribunal to infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon of environmental protection, where well-intentioned endeavors are not simply washed away," the Court observed. The Division Bench, also consisting of Justice Aravind Kumar, underscored the need for procedural integrity. The Court said that the same is important to balance justice and due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon of environmental protection, where well-intentioned endeavors are not simply washed away., the Bench added. These observations emerged while the Top Court was hearing two appeals challenging the green tribunal's order. In the main order, the Tribunal had passed an ex parte order against the appellants in suo motu proceedings. Further, the payment of compensation was also directed. In the second order, the review petition filed by one of the appellants was dismissed. In review, the appellant had argued that an adverse order was passed without hearing him. Against this backdrop, the matter came before the Supreme Court. The Court noted that no notices were issued to the project proponents, and the tribunal did not find it necessary to verify the facts. “It is evident from the above that the Tribunal itself has noted that notices were not issued to the Project Proponents. The Tribunal, in fact, considers it unnecessary to hear the Project Proponent to verify the facts in issue.” The Court also noted that the appellants did not have a full opportunity to contest the matter. Pertinently, when appeals were filed, the Top Court, through its order dated 04.03.2022, stayed the order passed by the Tribunal. Emphasizing two years have passed and the stay is still operating, the Court set aside the impugned orders. While doing so, the Court also remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. “Needless to say that the Tribunal shall hear the case, uninfluenced by the observations and conclusions drawn in the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021.,” the Court ordered.Case : Veena Gupta and another v. Central Pollution Control Board and othersCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 97Click here to read the judgment

Supreme Court Criticises NGT's Trend Of Passing Ex-Parte Orders Imposing Penalties, Says Tribunal Must Act With 'Procedural Integrity'

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags