NGT Not Merely An Adjudicatory Forum; Inquisitorial Functions Also Available With It To Protect Environment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to cognizance on the basis of letters, representation and media reports. A Bench comprising of Justices A.M.Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T.Ravikumar delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and other and connected cases) which raised the issue whether NGT has suo motu jurisdiction. The judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. Arguments advanced before the Bench Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Dushyant Dave, Jaideep Gupta, Atmaram Nadkarni, Krishnan Venugopal, V Giri, Sajan Poovayya, Siddharth Dave, Dhruv Mehta, Jaideep Gupta, etc taking a common stand had extended the following arguments. One, that NGT being a Tribunal and a creature of statute could not acts on its own motion, exercise the power of judicial review or act suo motu. Second, that NGT being a statutory body cannot assume inherent powers as under Art.32 and Art.226. Third, that NGT has an adjudicatory role to decide disputes which necessarily requires two or more contesting parties. Therefore, NGT by acting suo motu cannot transpose itself into shoes of one such party. Fourth, the absence of power of judicial review with NGT shows absence of legislative intent to curb suo motu power. On the other hand, Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Sanjay Parikh, and Gopal Shankaranarayanan argued that NGT has been conferred powers to pass orders for the restitution of environment and hence can exercise suo motu powers. Reasoning adopted by the Judgement On the Mandate and Jurisdiction of NGT The judgement refers to the history of the legislation, Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act to observe that NGT was conceived as a special forum to deal with all environmental issues both as original and appellate authority which were hitherto dealt with by High Court and the Supreme Court. It notes that the State of Objects and Reasons refers to the right to healthy environment being a part of Right to Life under Art.21 of the Constitution. It then goes on to observe that: "An Institution concerned with a significant aspect of Right to Life necessarily should be given the most liberal construction." (Para 14.3) In a later part of the judgement, the Court notes that this wide mandate conferred on the NGT would merit a more liberal interpretation of the provisions of NGT Act. It holds: "The duty to safeguard Art.21 rights cannot stand on a narrow compass of interpretation. Procedural provisions must be allowed to fall in step with the substantive rights that are invoked in the environmental domain, in larger public interest….To be effective in its domain we need to ascribe to the NGT a public responsibility to initiate action when required, to protect the substantive right of a clean environment and the procedural law should not be obstructive in its application." (Para 25.7) Further, the Court observes that the NGT Act was enacted with the objective of not only preventing damage to the environment but also protecting it. And thus, "the mandate and jurisdiction of the of the NGT is conceived to be of the widest amplitude and it is in the nature of a sui generis forum." (Para 14.4) The judgement explains that the reason the Court has adopted a purposive interpretation because the NGT is intended to address wide-ranging societal concerns. For this reason, the statute would have to be read in its entirety and each provision be given its due meaning by comprehending the mischief it intends to remedy. Relying on the Heydon's Rule which directs the adoption of the construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy, the Court leans towards an interpretation which "would allow fructification of the legislative intent and is forward looking." The judgement focuses on Rule 24 of the NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 which empowers the Tribunal to "make such orders or direction to give effect to its order…prevent the abuse of justice." The Court holds that the Rules make it clear that NGT has been given wide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. "By choosing to employ a phrase of wide import i.e securing the ends of justice, the legislature has nudged towards a liberal interpretation. Securing justice is a term of wide amplitude and does not simply mean adjudicating disputes between two rival entities. It also encompasses inter alia, advancing causes of environmental rights, granting compensation to victims of calamities, creating schemes for giving effect to the environmental principles and even hauling up authorities for inaction, when need be." (Para 16.4) Further, the Court emphasises, unlike civil courts ...

NGT Not Merely An Adjudicatory Forum; Inquisitorial Functions Also Available With It To Protect Environment : Supreme Court

Sneha Rao

Tags