Single Member Benches Of NGT Cannot Be Constituted In View Of Proviso To Section 4(4)(c) NGT Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that single member benches of National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot be constituted.The proviso to Section 4(4)(c) NGT Act mandates that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.The court added that a delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making.BackgroundSection 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 empowers the Central Government to make rules, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Tribunal, regulating generally the practices and procedure of the Tribunal including the minimum number of Members who shall hear the applications and appeals in respect of any class or classes of applications and appeals. The proviso to this reads thus: Provided that the number of Expert Members shall, in hearing an application or appeal, be equal to the number of Judicial Members hearing such application or appeal.On 1 December 2017, the Government introduced an amendment to the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011 to the effect that in exceptional circumstances the Chairperson may constitute a single Member Bench.On 11 January 2018, the Supreme Court in a petition filed by the National Green Tribunal Bar Association (Western Bench challenging the validity of the government order directed that the Chairperson of the NGT shall not constitute a single member Bench and each bench shall consist of one judicial member and an expert member. Subsequently, the acting Chairperson of the NGT issued an order that no single member Bench shall be constituted in any zonal benches with immediate effect. While so, on 29 January 2018, a single member of the NGT dismissed the application for condonation of delay which was filed by the appellant, for non-prosecution.Therefore, in appeal before the Apex Court, the issue raised was whether a single member of the Tribunal could have dealt with the proceedings and dismissed the applications for restoration and for condonation of delay on 29 January 2018 after the Attorney General of India had assured this Court on 11 January 2018 that the proviso to Rule 3 would be rectified in consonance with the Act and the judgments of this Court. ?Referring to its earlier order passed on 11 January 2018, the court, while allowing the appeal, observed thus:The order of this court on 11 January 2018 notes the assurance of the Attorney General that the rule under challenge would be rectified to bring it in accord with the Act and the judgments of this court. True, the order of this Court does not specifically record a direction for stay. This must however, be understood in the perspective of the fact that the Attorney General had placed a solemn assurance before the Court that the rule would be rectified to bring it in conformity with the parent enactment and the decisions of this Court. Implicit in this is the settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power. Propriety warranted that a consistent course of action should have been followed by the NGT, once the assurance which was held out before this court by the Attorney General, was brought to its knowledge. The order of this Court on 31 January 2018 directed that "in the meantime, the Chairperson shall not constitute a Single Member Bench….". The phrase "in the meantime' elucidates that during the time the executive deliberates on the dissonance of the Rule with the Act and judgments, there shall be a restraint on its implementation. Thus, it is evident from the phraseology of the order that this Court intended that there be an interdict on the constitution of single member benches constituted in purported exercise of the power conferred by the rule. The assumption of jurisdiction by a single member Bench clearly stands vitiated. The Single member could not have passed an order in view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which states that the number of expert members hearing the appeal or application shall be equal to the number of judicial members, mandating that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench.Case detailsTalli Gram Panchayat vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614 | CA 383-384 of 2022 | 11 July 2022 | Justices DY Chandrachud and AS BopannaHeadnotesNational Green Tribunal Act, 2010 ; Section 4 - NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 ; Rule 3 - In view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which states that the number of expert members hearing the appeal or application shall be equal to the number of judicial members, mandating that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench.Delegated Legislation - Delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power. (Para 12)Click...

Single Member Benches Of NGT Cannot Be Constituted In View Of Proviso To Section 4(4)(c) NGT Act: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags