NATIONAL
NATIONAL
GREEN
GREEN
TRIBUNAL
TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
It is a matter of
It is a matter of common knowledge that the higher judiciary in India iscommon knowledge that the higher judiciary in India is overburdened with a large backlog of cases. It may be appreciated that in order overburdened with a large backlog of cases. It may be appreciated that in order
to have effective prevention of
to have effective prevention of environmental pollution environmentalenvironmental pollution environmental complaints should be decided expeditiously which is
complaints should be decided expeditiously which is not possible in the presentnot possible in the present context of judicial administration. Therefore, there was an urgent need for an context of judicial administration. Therefore, there was an urgent need for an alternative forum so that environmental cases
alternative forum so that environmental cases were decided without much delay.were decided without much delay. The Indian Apex Court opined that it would be desirable to have the setting up The Indian Apex Court opined that it would be desirable to have the setting up of “environmental courts on the regional basis with a professional judge and of “environmental courts on the regional basis with a professional judge and two experts drawn from the...Ecological Science Research
two experts drawn from the...Ecological Science Research Group.”Group.”11 A similar A similar view was expressed by some of the prominent jurists of the country.
view was expressed by some of the prominent jurists of the country.
It may be noted that Principle 13
It may be noted that Principle 13 of the Rio Declaration on of the Rio Declaration on Development andDevelopment and Environment states that “states shall develop the national law regarding
Environment states that “states shall develop the national law regarding liabilityliability and compensation for the victims of
and compensation for the victims of Pollution and other environmentalPollution and other environmental damage”. To give ef
damage”. To give ef fect to the above directive and to provide for a forum forfect to the above directive and to provide for a forum for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from any accident occurring effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from any accident occurring
while handling any hazardous substance, the Indian Parliament enacted the while handling any hazardous substance, the Indian Parliament enacted the
National Green Tribunal Act,
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.2010.22
It may be appreciated that the Stockholm Declaration 1972 which has been It may be appreciated that the Stockholm Declaration 1972 which has been
described as International “
described as International “Magna CartaMagna Carta””33 of our environment and the Rio of our environment and the Rio declaration, 1992 have exhorted the
declaration, 1992 have exhorted the members of the International Communitymembers of the International Community including India, to take appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of including India, to take appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of human environment. To give effect
human environment. To give effect to these exhortations contained in the globalto these exhortations contained in the global
1.
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965-967.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965-967.
2.
2. The immediate reasons that prompted the Indian Parliament to enact the Tribunals Act had been (i) the inordinateThe immediate reasons that prompted the Indian Parliament to enact the Tribunals Act had been (i) the inordinate delay involved in the redressal of environment related grievances like the one involving the Bhopal Gas Leak case delay involved in the redressal of environment related grievances like the one involving the Bhopal Gas Leak case (Charan Lal v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480) and (ii) the inadequacy of the existing judicial system to provide (Charan Lal v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480) and (ii) the inadequacy of the existing judicial system to provide adequate relief as evidenced in the Oleum Gas Leak Case (MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965).
adequate relief as evidenced in the Oleum Gas Leak Case (MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965). 3.
declarations on environment and to provide for a specialized forum for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising out of enforcement of environmental
laws in the country, the Indian Parliament has enacted, recently, the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 which has come into force on 2 June 2010. The Act seeks to replace the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and the National
Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 which have been in operation for some time in the country. The Act has been enacted in response to the recommendations of the Law Commission of India and the Indian Supreme
Court which highlighted the large number of environment – related cases pending in the courts.4
The legislate Act of Parliament defines the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as follows, "An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Green
Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to
environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto".
On 18 October 2010, Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta became its first Chairman. Currently it is chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar since 20 Dec 2012.
The Tribunal's dedicated jurisdiction in environmental matters shall provide speedy environmental justice and help reduce the burden of litigation in the higher courts. The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. The Tribunal is mandated to make and endeavour for disposal of
applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing of the same. Initially,
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 653, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965 and Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India, MANU/SC/ 0285/1990.
the NGT was proposed to be set up at five places of sittings and will follow circuit procedure for making itself more accessible; New Delhi is the Principal Place of Sitting of the Tribunal and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai shall be
the other 4 place of sitting of the Tribunal.
The Act seeks to establish specialized Green Tribunal5 with five benches located at different regions in the country. First jurisdiction to hear a case involving environmental matters is wider than the one conferred on the National
Environmental Appellate Authority which has now been replaced by the new Act. The Act confers on the Green Tribunal to hear initial complaints6 as well as
appeals from decisions of authorities under various environmental laws.7 The Tribunal, when established, would not be bound to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973. Instead, it is allowed to follow the
abstract principles of natural justice.8 However, the Tribunal will have the powers of a civil court under the civil procedure code.9 Its decisions are binding
on the parties.10 There can be appeals to the Supreme Court against the decisions, orders or awards of the Tribunal.11 The Act also ordains that no civil court shall be allowed to entertain cases which Tribunal is competent to hear.12
The most salient feature of the Act is that the Green Tribunal is enjoined to follow the internationally recognized and nationally applied environmental principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays
principle while issuing any order, decision or award.13 While the Act envisages the conferment of wide jurisdiction on the Green Tribunal, it also, at the same
5. Sections 3 and 4 of the NGT Act, 2010. 6. Ibid, Sections 14 and 15.
7. Ibid, Section 16. 8. Ibid, Section 19 (1). 9. Ibid, Section 19 (4). 10. Ibid, Section 21. 11. Ibid, Section 22. 12. Ibid, Section 29. 13. Ibid, Section 20.
time, seeks to restrict the scope of its jurisdiction only to matters involving substantial questions relating to environment.14 The expression a substantial
question has been defined as an instance where there is a direct violation of specific environmental obligation affecting either the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals by its environmental consequence or where the gravity of the damage to the environment or property is substantial or
where the damage to public health is broadly measurable.15
It is interesting to note while the right to Article 21 of the constitution is a fundamental right guaranteed to individuals, the Act seeks to deny to the same
individuals and groups of individuals the right to question any environmental consequence threat affects them unless it also affects the community at large or public health. However, individuals can approach the court when the damage to
the environment or property is substantial.
It is submitted that the definition of the expression substantial question relating to environment as given in the Act which provides for statutory exclusion of individuals may not stand judicial scrutiny for the right to healthy environment,
in its wide amplitude, subsumes all aspects of environmental degradation.
Again, it is doubtful whether the jurisdiction of the High Courts which are constitutional courts can be excluded either by ordinary legislation or by a
14. Ibid, Section 14 (1). 15. Ibid, Section 2 (1) (m).
constitutional amendment as their power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE
TRIBUNAL
The Act empowers the Central Government to establish, by notification with effect from such date as may be specified therein, the Green Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority that may be conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act.16 The Central Government is empowered to specify, by notification, the ordinary place or places of sitting of the sitting.17
The Central Government may in consultation with the chairperson of the Tribunal, make rules for regulating the ordinary practice and procedure of the
Tribunal.18
The Tribunal shall consist of a full time chairperson and not a less than ten but subject to maximum of twenty full time judicial members as the Central Government may, from time to time, notify. The Tribunal shall consist of not less than ten but subject to maximum of twenty full time expert members as the
Central Government may, from time to time, notify.19 The Chairperson of the Tribunal has been authorized to invite one or more expert members who have specialized knowledge and experience to assist the court in a particular case
before the Tribunal.20
In his petition,21 M. Naveen Kumar, a final year student of the School of Excellence in Law, Chennai, sought a direction to declare the Act
16. Section 3 of the NGT Act, 2010. 17. Ibid, Section 4 (3).
18. Ibid, Section 4 (4). 19. Ibid, Section 4 (1). 20. Ibid, Section 4 (2).
unconstitutional. He filed a writ petition in the Madras high court, challenging the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 providing for constitution of a Green
Tribunal to deal with environment-related cases.
Under the NGT Act, the union government is to set up a National Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to
environmental protection, conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving
relief and compensation for damages.
He also sought interim direction directing the union government not to appoint any further members, including expert members in constituting the National Green Tribunal and not to transfer any pending or fresh matters from the high
court to the Tribunal.
The petitioner contended that the constitution of the Green Tribunal and by excluding all environmental matters from the ambit of the jurisdiction of the high court and the civil courts would severely affect the right of access to justice
to the poor and needy.
It was further submitted that the NGT Act only provided for constitution of a National Level Tribunal and provided for circuit benches and there was no
The matter is still pending before the Madras High Court.
APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Central Government is authorized to appoint the members of the Tribunal subject to the fulfilment of the above prescribed qualifications.22 The Act states
that the Chairperson of the Tribunal may be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.23 The other members shall be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation
of such Selection Committee as may be prescribed.24
The Chairperson, judicial members and expert members shall hold office as such for a term of five years from date on which they enter upon their office and they shall not be eligible for re-appointment. This is subject to the condition that
in case a person, who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court, has been appointed as Chairperson or judicial member of the Tribunal, he shall not hold office after he has attained the age of Seventy years. Similarly, in case a person,
who is or has been the Chief Justice of a High Court, has been appointed as a Chairperson or judicial member of the Tribunal, he shall not hold office after he
has attained the age of six seven years. Further, in case a pertain who is or has been a judge of a High Court, has been appointed as a judicial member of the Tribunal, he shall not hold office after he has attained the age of sixty seven years. In the case of expert members, the Act says, they cannot hold office after
they have attained the age of sixty-five years.25
22. Ibid, Section 6 (1). 23. Ibid, Section 6 (2). 24. Ibid, Section 6 (3). 25. Ibid, Section 7.
No other Office during the Tenure
The Act declares that the members of the Tribunal shall not hold any other office during their tenure as such.26 The Act also debars them from accepting any employment, after they cease to hold office, from any person who has been
a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal under the Act. However, this bar does not apply to any employment under the Central Government or a State Government or local authority or in any Statutory authority or any corporation established by or under any Central or State or Provincial Act or a Government
Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.27
JURISDICTION, POWERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE
TRIBUNAL
26. Ibid, Section 7 (3). 27. Ibid, Section 7 (4).
The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all cases where a substantial question relating to environment is involved28 and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I. The Tribunal is
authorized to hear all disputes arising from substantial questions relating environment and settle disputes and pass orders there in, provided the
application for adjudication of the dispute is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose.
However, the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be
filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days29. Under the Act, the Proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings.30
Jaya Prakash Dabral & Dr . Bh arat Jhu njh unwala v.
Un ion of I ndia & State of Uttarakhand 31
This application is filed under Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act, 2010 by the parties. It is their case that a cause of action had occurred in the tunnel which received wide spread publicity in the local newspaper. There is an urgent need
to raise the negative impact of the tunnel based hydro power projects. If the
28. Ibid, Section 14 (1). 29. Ibid, Section 14 (3). 30. Ibid, Section 19 (5).
construction of the dam is allowed, it may cause irreparable and irreversible loss to the environment.
According to the applicants, there are six hydroelectric projects which have been planned in river Mandakini. Four of them are in planning stage while in
two the construction has started. What is alarming today is that in the entire length of 50 km from the first dam to the last dam, the river will be channelled
through tunnels. This will have grave environmental consequences. The river water will only appear out of a power house and then disappear in another
tunnel. The Government proposes to build this tunnel contiguous to one another. The River will flow entirely through tunnels. Both percolation and
evaporation of river water will be less and adversely affect the forest and environment.
It was contended by all the respondents that the very application under Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act is not maintainable. The applicants can never be called either person/(s) aggrieved or person/(s) injured for the purpose of maintaining
the application.
According to the applicants, they are directly affected due to likely methane emissions, deterioration of water quality, loss of bio-diversity, etc... There is no requirement under the NGT Act, 2010 that the grievance should be of particular level, in environmental matters. The Section 18 of the NGT Act excludes those
individuals who are not directly affected and also have no track record of environmental activities. The application is made under section 14 of the NGT
Act and not under Section 16 of the NGT Act. The cause of action in environmental issue is continuous.
Now the only point that falls for consideration is that whether the appellants can be called as aggrieved and/or injured “person”(s) as defined under the NGT Act
and the appeal is maintainable by them.
The Tribunal held that according to Section 2 (j) of the NGT Act, 2010 the applicants are persons aggrieved, in a matter of this nature. Therefore, the
applicants are entitled to maintain an application of this nature.
Pradeep Kum ar Agarwall a v. Rohit Choudhar y and Ors.32
by the order in this case the Tribunal has disposed of the 18 miscellaneous application filed on behalf of the different applicants seeking
correction/modification of the order and judgement passed by the Tribunal dated 24th January, 2013 titled Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla v. Rohit Choudhary
and Ors.
In this case, one Rohit Choudhary had filed an application33 stating that he was a resident of village Ghokaghat and was concerned about the ecology of the
area and the future of the Indian Rhinoceros, Elephants and wide species of flora and fauna available in the Kaziranga Park, which is also a tiger reserve under the provisions of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The said applicant
filed an application under Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act, 2010 praying for issuance of appropriate directions to the authorities to safeguard Kaziranga and its ecology. The main grievance of the applicant was that no regulated quarrying
and mining activity was permitted in and around the area of Kaziranga National Park and even commercial activities were going on within no development zone. This was threatening the survival of the rare species. The attempts of the
applicants to remedy such wrongs at the ministerial and government levels failed to yield any result.
According to the applicant, there was rampant violations of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, while direction issued in terms of Rule
5 of the Environment (Protection) act, 1986 were being acted upon more in its breach than in its compliance. After pleadings of the parties were completed, the
arguments were heard completed, the arguments were heard by the Tribunal and vide its detailed judgement dated 7th September, 2012, the Tribunal passed the
following judgement:
“After meticulous perusal of documents filed and the submissions made by Learned Counsel for parties, there is no hesitation in our mind to come to a
conclusion that numbers of industrial units, some of which are hazardous and creating pollution, are existing in or about “No Development Zone”. Protection
of environment, ecology, biodiversity and adverse impacts on flora and fauna vis-a-vis conservation of forest and other natural resources including enforcement of legal right relating to environment, being the paramount objective of the National Green Tribunal, to maintain healthy environment and
eradicate the pollution, and to protect ecology in Kaziranga National Park and its vicinity, which is highly eco-sensitive.”
The Tribunal directed the authorities to take following actions:
a) The 11 stone crushers which according to the CPCB report, are located within the NDZ are non-functional at present. Since, those 11 stone crushers have been established/allowed to be established within NDZ in contravention of the 1996 Notification, the State Government is directed to take immediate steps to remove all those illegal stone crushers except 1
which is M/s Assam Stone Crusher from the NDZ area forthwith. It appears that M/s Assam Stone Crusher was installed before 1996 i.e. prior to the notification. The State of Assam is, therefore, directed to take
steps to relocate the said unit outside the NDZ. In other words, the said unit should not be allowed to operate in its present location with
b) According to the CPCB report, 34 Brick Kilns are operating within NDZ, out of which only 1 unit was set up before 1996. Brick Kilns being the main pollution causing units are hazardous to environment. The said 33
Brick Kilns should be closed down immediately.
c) The CPCB report further reveals that 11 miscellaneous industries are existing within NDZ. Out of them 4 are fuel dispensing stations, 1 is a
saw mill, 1 is oil tanker making unit, 1 is a restaurant, 1 is concrete making unit, 2 is mustered oil mills and 1 is flour mill.
Out of the aforesaid 11 industries, except 4 which are pumps and the restaurant, all other units generate lots of pollution, therefore, they should
not be allowed to operate in their present locations and action should be taken to shift them immediately out of NDZ.
d) The SPCB and other authorities were directed to ensure that no tea processing units having boiler using fossil fuel should operate within the
NDZ and take immediate steps to stop their operation.
Shr i D eepak Kum ar v. State of H aryana and Others 34 dated 27th February, 2012. The Supreme Court held that all the mining projects of minor minerals, including their renewable irrespective of their period of lease, are now required
to obtain prior Environmental Clearance.
THE JUDICIAL REMEDY UNDER THE ACT
The Act provides for various kinds of relief.35 It says that the Tribunal may, by an order, provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other
environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule-I to the Act, including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance. It may also order the restitution of the property damaged and the restitution of the environment for that areas as the Tribunal may think fit.36 The
relief under this Act is an addition to the relief given under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.37 The Act seeks to discourage delayed applications for relief. If stipulates that no application for the above mentioned categories of relief would be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such relief first arose. However,
the Tribunal may allow further sixty days for the application to be filed if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing such application.38 The Act obligates the claimants under the Act to intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or as the case may be, compensation or
relief received from, any other court or authority.39 The Act provides for no fault liability in case of claims involving an accident by authorizing the Tribunal
to apply the Principle of no fault.40 The Act provides for an expeditious relief. It requires the Tribunal to deal with the applications or, as the case may be, appeals, as expeditiously as possible and obligates the Tribunal to endeavour to
dispose of the application or, the case may be, an appeal finally within six
36. Ibid, Section 15 (1). 37. Ibid, Section 15 (2). 38. Ibid, Section 15 (3). 39. Ibid, Section 15 (5). 40. Ibid, Section 17 (2).
months from the date of filing the application, or, as the case may be, the appeal, after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard.41
Who can file an Application or an Appeal under the Act?
The Act provides that an application for grant of relief or compensation or settlement of dispute may be made to the Tribunal by —
a) any person who has sustained the injury; or
b) the owner of the property to which the damage has been caused or c) all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased where death has
resulted from the environmental damage or
d) any agent duly authorized by such person or owner of such property or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or e) any person aggrieved; including any representative body or organization.
In addition, the Central Government or a State Government, or a Union Territory administration or the Central Pollution Control Board or a State
Pollution Control Board or a Pollution Control Committee or a local Authority or any environmental authority constituted or established under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or any other law for the time in force, can also move the Tribunal.42
41. Ibid, Section 18 (3). 42. Ibid, Section 18 (2).
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 1 Short-title and commencement.
(1) These rules may be called the-Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) "Act" means the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986); (b) "area/zone" means all areas which fall in either of the four categories
given in the Schedule annexed to these rules;
(c) "authority" means any authority or officer authorised by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance
with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police
Commissioner, or any other officer designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time
being in force;
(d) "person" in relation to any factory or premises means a person or occupier or his agent, who has control over the affairs of the factory or
premises;
(e) "State Government" in relation to a Union territory means the Administrator thereof appointed under article 239 of the Constitution. 3. Ambient air guality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones.
(1) The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones shall be such as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules.
(2) The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of
implementation of noise standards for different areas.
(3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the
existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.
(4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planning developmental activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects of noise
pollution as a parameter of quality of life to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in
respect of noise.
(5) An area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for
4. Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures. (1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air quality
standards in respect of noise as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality
standards in respect of noise.
5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address s1stem.
(1) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority.
(2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for
communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.
6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.
Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:
(i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers,
(ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or
(iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to 44raq crowds.
7. Complaints to be made to the authority.
(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any
area/zone, make a complaint to the authority.
(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law
in force.
8. Power to prohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise.
(1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer in-charge of a police station or other information received by him that it is necessary to do
so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person
who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for
preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating:
(a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of -(i) any vocal or instrumental music,
(ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing
sound, or
(b) the carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise.
(2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made
under sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order: Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before it either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.
On sand mining
Reaffirming February 27, 2012, Supreme Court’s order banning any kind of mining of minor minerals, including sand, without environmental clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, the NGT on 5 August 2013 issued a restraint order against all sand mining activity being carried out
across the country without environmental clearance. The bench comprising justices Swatenter Kumar, U D Salvi, S N Hussain, and experts, D K Agarwal
and Ranjan Chatterjee said that removal of minerals from river beds is posing a serious threat to the flow of rivers, survival of forests upon river banks and most
seriously to the environment of river banks, especially those of
the Yamuna, Ganga, Chambal, Gaumti and Revati rivers. The NGT bench also observed that “majority of persons carrying out mining activity of removing mineral from the river bed have no licence to extract sand; they also have not
obtained clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests or the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) at any stage in terms of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act, 1986) as well as Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1974. While the bench initially restrained illegal sand
mining on the beds and banks of rivers Yamuna, Ganga, Hindon, Chambal, Gomti, amongst others, but later modified its order saying the issue of illegally removing sand has nationwide implications . On August 14, 2013, The National
Green Tribunal (NGT) decided to set up an expert committee on illegal sand mining to carry out any orders that it may pass in future and to prepare a
comprehensive report on the issue. The committee will also carry out a comprehensive zoning and mapping to delineate areas where mining could be
permitted and to what extent. The tribunal specifically banned beach sand mining in the coastal States citing specific instances of State of Tamil Nadu -where 2,30,000 tonnes beach sand mineral has been quarried in Vaippar village
without permission of any Government Authority and State of Kerala.
Yamuna Conservation Zone
On 25 April 2014, The NGA said that the health of Yamuna will be affected by the proposed recreational facilities on the river. The NGT also recommended the Government to declare a 52 km stretch of the Yamuna in Delhi and Uttar
Coal Blocks in Chhattisgarh Forests
The National Green Tribunal has cancelled the clearance given by the then Union Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh, to the Parsa East and
Kante-Basan captive coal blocks in the Hasdeo-Arand forests of Chhattisgarh, overruling the statutory Forest Advisory Committee.
The forest clearance was given by Mr. Ramesh in June 2011, overriding the advice of the Ministry’s expert panel on the two blocks for mining by a joint venture between Adani and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited.
The blocks requiring 1,989 hectares of forestland fell in an area that the government had initially barred as it was considered a patch of valuable forest
and demarcated as a ‘no-go’ area.
The order is bound to have a more far-reaching impact, with the tribunal holding that “mere expression of fanciful reasons relating to environmental concerns without any basis, scientific study or past experience would not render
the advice of FAC — a body of experts — inconsequential. Under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the FAC is required to appraise projects that require forestlands and advise the Environment Ministry to grant approval or reject the
proposals.
But in this case, the NGT noted, the Minister had taken all of one day and relied upon his “understanding and belief” without any “basis either in any
authoritative study or experience in the relevant fields.” The Minister, while clearing the coal blocks, had given six reasons for doing so, including that the coal blocks are linked to super-critical thermal power plant, which is imperative
production. These ‘anthropocentric’ considerations, the NGT held, were not valid to evaluate the project.
Object
An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of
any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
The Objects of the Act
The object of the Act is to give effect to its International obligations arising out of various decisions taken at International Conferences to which India has been a Party and also to implement the Indian apex court’s pronouncement that the right to healthy environment is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This object has been amply reflected in the preamble to the
Act which says:
“To provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any
legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
And whereas India is a party to the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972 …….
calling upon the States to take appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of the human environment.
And whereas decisions were taken at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held at Reo de Janeiro in June, 1992 ……….Calling upon the States to provide effective access to judicial and
administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy and to develop national laws regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution
and other environmental damage.
And whereas in the judicial pronouncement in India, the right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right to life under article 21 of
the Constitution.
And whereas it is considered expedient to implement the decisions taken at the aforesaid conferences and to have a National Green Tribunal in view of the
