How NCT is different from the courts

Any violations pertaining to the above laws, or any order/decision taken by the government under the above stated seven laws, can be challenged before the NGT. With the enactment of the NGT Act, civil courts cannot hear matters related to environmental issues which the NGT is empowered to deal with. The power to appeal the NGT’s orders lies only with the Supreme Court. The NGT is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. Further, the NGT is also not bound by the rules of evidence as enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, it will be relatively easier (as opposed to approaching a court) for conservation groups to present facts and issues before the NGT, including pointing out technical flaws in a project, or proposing alternatives that could minimize environmental damage but which have not been considered. The judgements by the NGT are particularly focused on the three principles of environmental legislation—’polluter pays principle’, the ‘precautionary principle’ and, most importantly, ‘sustainable development principle.’

If a project proponent or any authority does not comply with the directions contained in an NGT order, the penalty can be imprisonment for three years or fine extending to Rs. 10 crores or both. Continued failure will attract a fine of Rs. 25000 per day. These fines are much higher than the ones intrinsic to environmental laws in the country.

Important judgements by the NGT

The NGT has been very proactive since its inception and has delivered many landmark judgements. In the Posco Case in Odisha, it ordered the suspension of the establishment of the 12 metric tonne per annum (MTPA) capacity steel plant. The order came as a radical step in favour of the local communities and forests. While the case is still going on in court, it is worth mentioning that the tribunal has stood its ground to support sustainable development and has valued local communities’ interests above that of economic profit from the project. The NGT has not spared even the governments—e.g. it has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Government of Rajasthan for not controlling pollution in the river Jojari despite its commitments/assurances made to the tribunal. Similar instances of fining the regulatory authorities for not discharging their duties have been there in other states too. However, the NGT has also passed judgements in favour of industries when the scale tips towards economic development. The Sterlite Industries judgement warranted the need for sustainable development. The tribunal passed an order in favour of the industry and stated that ‘environmental restrictions must operate with all their rigour but no action should be suspicionbased which itself is not well-founded.’

A very important judgement with far reaching implications was passed by the NGT on 13 July 2017 on the rejuvenation of the river Ganga. The judgment, running into 543 pages, provides for the first time a comprehensive roadmap on dealing with river pollution at both the macro and the micro level. The NGT’s judgment was an outcome of detailed hearings on a day-to-day basis spanning several months. The judicial and expert members of the NGT painstakingly studied the waste composition of almost each and every stream which discharges effluents into the Ganga and gave specific directions on how to deal with it. Such minute details, over such a large stretch of the river, have few parallels in India’s environmental jurisprudence. This detailed judgment, however, would not have happened, had the Supreme Court, in October 2014, not transferred the Ganga pollution case to the NGT. After hearing the case filed 30 years ago, in 2014 the Supreme Court recorded its own limitations while dealing with the case.

Another landmark order has been passed by the NGT on 20 September 2018 with respect to the increasing polluted river stretches in the country (TOI, 2018). It ordered all states and Union Territories (UTs) to prepare action plans within two months, to improve the quality of polluted river stretches to ‘at least bathing purpose.’ It observed that the SPCBs have failed to check pollution. The tribunal has taken suo moto cognisance of a report published in The Hindu on 17 September 2018. The tribunal has clearly stated that the chief secretary of each state and the administrator of each UT will be responsible for preparation of the action plan.

Most recently, in the category of judgements by the NGT (TOI, 2019b) is an order dated 16 July 2019 which has directed the CPCB to shut down the polluting industries in the ‘critically polluted’ and ‘severely polluted’ areas (identified under CEPI, discussed in first chapter) across the country within three months. It has also asked the CPCB to assess the amount of compensation to be recovered from polluting industries to restore the environment and to pay at the cost to public health.