National Green Tribunal & Major Quasi-Judicial Bodies

Why NGT Matters

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is India's specialised environmental court — one of the most active environmental adjudicatory bodies in the world. Its orders directly affect industrial policy, urban planning, infrastructure projects, and public health. For UPSC aspirants, NGT straddles GS Paper 2 (quasi-judicial bodies, tribunalisation, separation of powers) and GS Paper 3 (environmental governance, pollution control, sustainable development).

India became the 3rd country in the world — after Australia and New Zealand — to set up a dedicated environmental court, and the first developing country to do so.

NGT — Statutory Basis

Preamble objective: 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.

Why Article 253? Because environment is largely a concurrent/State subject (entries in Lists II and III), Parliament could not ordinarily create a central tribunal. By framing NGT as giving effect to Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1992) obligations, Parliament invoked Article 253, which overrides the usual division of powers.

Composition

Current Chairperson: Justice Prakash Shrivastava (retired Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court; assumed charge on 21 August 2023; succeeded Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel who served 6 July 2018 – 6 July 2023).

Bench-composition rule: Every bench must have at least one Judicial Member and one Expert Member, and the number of Expert Members must equal the number of Judicial Members on a bench. This hybrid model is NGT's defining innovation — unlike regular courts, environmental expertise sits alongside legal expertise.

Headquarters and Benches

Circuit Benches: The Act empowers NGT to sit at additional locations through circuit benches (e.g., Shimla, Shillong, Jodhpur) as notified.

Sittings: NGT follows principles of natural justice; it is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 19, NGT Act). This gives it procedural flexibility.

Jurisdiction — Schedule I of NGT Act

NGT's jurisdiction is tied to seven environmental laws listed in Schedule I:

Conspicuous exclusions: Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Indian Forest Act 1927, and Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 are outside NGT's direct jurisdiction. Disputes under these continue before regular civil courts and High Courts.

Three Types of Jurisdiction

Limitation: Original jurisdiction cases must be filed within 6 months of the cause of action; appellate cases within 30 days of the impugned order (extendable by 60 days for sufficient cause).

Powers of NGT

1. Suo Motu Cognizance — Recognised by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (7 October 2021). SC held NGT has suo motu jurisdiction flowing from its "unique nature" and the purposive reading of the NGT Act. Procedural safeguard: NGT must issue notice to the affected party before passing adverse orders.
2. Polluter Pays Principle — levy damages to be used for environmental restoration
3. Restoration Orders — direct removal of encroachments, restoration of wetlands, demolition of illegal constructions
4. Interim Injunctions — stay construction, industrial operations pending inquiry
5. Oversight Committees — appoint expert panels to monitor compliance (e.g., Yamuna, Ganga pollution)
6. Contempt Powers — same powers as High Court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Section 26)
7. Review & Execution — review own orders (Section 19(4)); execute orders as a decree of civil court (Section 25)

Cannot do:

• Award punitive/exemplary damages — only restitutionary compensation
• Entertain matters outside Schedule I laws (e.g., Wildlife Act, CRZ matters where linked to WLPA)
• Override constitutional writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Art. 226/227

Key Environmental Doctrines NGT Applies

These doctrines are explicitly codified in Section 20 of the NGT Act, which directs the tribunal to apply them while passing any order.

Landmark NGT Judgments

Performance — Disposal Statistics

Cumulative (since inception, 2010 to late 2025): Over 38,000 cases disposed; NGT among most prolific tribunals globally by environmental caseload.

Pending cases by bench (as of November 2025):

Mandated disposal time: 6 months from filing (Section 18(3)). Actual average disposal time has slipped beyond this due to member vacancies.

Criticisms and Limitations

1. Chronic Vacancies — As of September 2024, NGT was functioning with only 6 judicial members against a sanctioned strength of up to 20; similar shortfall in expert members
2. Jurisdictional Gaps — Supreme Court in Vedanta/Sterlite (2019) held NGT has no jurisdiction over orders passed by State Governments directly (only against PCBs, EIA authorities, etc.)
3. Exclusion of Key Laws — WLPA 1972 and Forest Rights Act 2006 outside NGT's ambit
4. No Enforcement Machinery — NGT relies on State PCBs and district administration for implementation; often diluted
5. Appellate Route Only to SC — Section 22: appeals directly to Supreme Court on a substantial question of law within 90 days. No intermediate High-Court review of NGT orders (contested by academics — SC in L. Chandra Kumar logic suggests HC Art. 226 jurisdiction should survive)
6. Procedural Fairness Concerns — Rapid suo motu orders sometimes passed without hearing all stakeholders
7. Resource Crunch — Digital infrastructure, e-filing improved 2023-25, but staffing and regional accessibility remain weak

NGT vs MoEFCC vs CPCB — Who Does What?

Other Major Quasi-Judicial Tribunals — Comparative Table

Constitutional basis: Part XIV-A (inserted by 42nd Amendment, 1976): Article 323-A (administrative tribunals — only Parliament can create) and Article 323-B (other matters — Parliament/State Legislature can create).

On "FSAT": The proposed Financial Sector Appellate Tribunal (FSAT) was envisaged by the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC, Justice Srikrishna, 2013) to replace and expand SAT — hearing appeals from SEBI, IRDAI, PFRDA, FMC under a unified code. The Indian Financial Code (IFC) bill containing FSAT has not been enacted as of April 2026; SAT continues to perform the expanded role (it already hears appeals from PFRDA and IRDAI by successive amendments).

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

Enacted to rationalise and abolish multiple appellate tribunals (FAT for Plant Varieties, Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, etc.), merging their functions into existing tribunals or High Courts.

Key provisions (as originally enacted):

Supreme Court Interventions:

1. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (14 July 2021) — Struck down 50-year age bar; upheld the principle that tribunal members should enjoy minimum 5-year tenure for independence.
2. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2025 — November 2025 judgment) — Struck down further provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 as violating separation of powers and judicial independence; directed Centre to establish a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) for unified, independent oversight of tribunal appointments.

Effect: 5-year tenure restored; 50-year age bar eliminated; appointments now expected to flow through NTC framework (pending statutory operationalisation).

Key Terms {.ncert-box .ncert-box--key-term}

• NGT (National Green Tribunal) — statutory environmental tribunal (NGT Act, 2010)
• Polluter Pays Principle — polluter bears full cost of environmental damage and restoration
• Precautionary Principle — preventive action where serious/irreversible harm is likely, even without scientific certainty
• Suo Motu — action initiated by a court/tribunal on its own motion, without a formal petition
• Original Jurisdiction — authority to hear a case at first instance
• Appellate Jurisdiction — authority to hear appeals against lower orders
• Quasi-Judicial Body — non-court body exercising judicial-like powers (adjudication, evidence, binding orders) within a defined domain
• Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 — statute rationalising tribunals; multiple provisions struck down by SC (2021, 2025)
• Article 323-A — constitutional basis for administrative tribunals (service matters); only Parliament can create
• Article 323-B — constitutional basis for tribunals for other matters (tax, foreign exchange, labour, land reforms, election etc.); both Parliament and State Legislatures can create

Beyond the Book — Judicial-Review Landscape of Tribunals

1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997, 7-judge bench)

• Struck down Articles 323-A(2)(d) and 323-B(3)(d) to the extent they excluded HC/SC jurisdiction
• Held: Judicial review under Art. 226/227 (HC) and Art. 32 (SC) is part of basic structure of the Constitution
• Consequence: All tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court
• Tribunals can test constitutionality of subordinate legislation, but not their parent statute

2. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019, 5-judge bench)

• Struck down Tribunal Rules 2017 for diluting independence
• Laid down: tribunal members must have security of tenure (min 5 years) and insulation from executive interference

3. Madras Bar Association cases (2010, 2014, 2021, 2025) — An unbroken line of Constitution Bench rulings reiterating: tribunalisation is permissible, but tribunals must match the independence and competence of the courts they replace.

4. NGT-specific — Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari (2018) — SC held NGT cannot direct the Centre/State on appointments, but recognised NGT's broad remedial powers.

Recent Developments (2024–2026)

NGT Vacancies — Pendency Crisis

The NGT has faced chronic vacancy problems that severely limit its capacity:

• As of early 2025, NGT had fewer than 10 functioning members against a sanctioned strength of Chairperson + up to 20 members.
• The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticised delays in filling vacancies and the consequent backlog of cases.
• NGT Principal Bench (Delhi) alone has 15,000+ pending cases (2024 estimate).
• Justice Prakash Shrivastava continues as NGT Chairperson (since August 2023).

SC Criticism of MoEFCC Delay (2024)

The Supreme Court (in multiple environmental PILs during 2023–25) criticised:

• The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) for diluting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) norms through post-facto approval mechanisms.
• The EIA Notification 2020 Draft — which would have allowed post-facto clearance for projects that violated environmental norms — was never finalised after massive civil society opposition and NGT observations.

Madras Bar Association (2025) — Tribunals Ruling

The 2025 Madras Bar Association judgment (the fourth in this line of cases) reaffirmed that:

• Tribunals established under Article 323-B cannot dilute the essentials of judicial independence.
• Service conditions for tribunal members must be prescribed by Parliament, not left to executive rule.
• The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 — which merged 9 tribunals into their parent High Courts — was partially upheld and partially struck down.

Implication for NGT: The consistent judicial pushback on tribunal quality means any future restructuring of NGT must preserve its expert-judicial hybrid character.

NGT and Climate — Expanding Jurisdiction (2024–25)

• NGT has increasingly taken up climate-related cases — air quality indices, stubble burning in Punjab-Haryana, industrial emissions, and groundwater depletion.
• The Yamuna clean-up case — running for over a decade — remains the NGT's most high-profile but least resolved matter, with the SC taking direct cognisance in 2023 due to NGT's inability to enforce compliance.
• The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) for Delhi-NCR air quality is now operationally overseen by a Supreme Court-appointed committee — reflecting NGT's enforcement limitations.

Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023

The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 amended the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (one of the 7 Acts under NGT's Schedule I jurisdiction). Key changes:

• Exempted AYUSH users (traditional practitioners) from benefit-sharing obligations.
• Reclassified "codified traditional knowledge" — reduced regulatory burden on practitioners.
• Critics argue the amendment weakens biodiversity protection and benefit-sharing with local communities; environmentalists raised objections before the standing committees.

Exam Strategy

GS Paper 2 angles:

• Quasi-judicial bodies & separation of powers — NGT as a model of specialised adjudication; contrast with regular judiciary burdened by 5+ crore pending cases
• Accountability — NGT answerable only to SC (Sec. 22), raising questions of feedback loops
• Executive-Judiciary tension — Tribunals Reforms Act saga illustrates tug-of-war

GS Paper 3 angles:

• Environmental governance — NGT as de facto environmental regulator supplementing CPCB/MoEFCC
• Sustainable development — application of Polluter Pays and Precautionary Principles
• Pollution — Delhi air quality, Yamuna/Ganga cleaning, solid-waste management orders

High-frequency Prelims facts:

• NGT Act 2010; came into force 18 October 2010
• 3rd country globally with specialised environmental court (after Australia, NZ)
• Enacted under Article 253 (international obligations route)
• 5 benches: Delhi (Principal), Bhopal, Pune, Chennai, Kolkata
• 7 laws in Schedule I (Water, Water Cess, Forest Conservation, Air, EPA, Public Liability Insurance, Biological Diversity)
• Wildlife Protection Act 1972 is NOT under NGT jurisdiction
• Appeals from NGT go directly to SC (not HC) — Section 22
• Chairperson: Justice Prakash Shrivastava (since 21 August 2023)
• Suo motu power affirmed in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (7 October 2021)
• Article 323-A vs 323-B: 323-A = only Parliament, only service matters; 323-B = Parliament + States, wider subjects
• ITAT (1941) = oldest tribunal; CAT (1985) under Art. 323-A

Mains model question:

"The National Green Tribunal has been described as a 'court within a court' for environmental matters. Critically examine its structural strengths and limitations in delivering environmental justice." (15 marks, 250 words)

Answer skeleton: Statutory basis (Art 253) → hybrid judicial-expert composition → wide doctrines (Sec 20) → landmark orders (Yamuna, Delhi vehicles, Art of Living) → criticisms (vacancies, jurisdictional limits, no HC review) → reforms needed (NTC under 2025 Madras Bar Association ruling; filling vacancies; widening Schedule I to include WLPA).

Cross-link: For latest NGT orders, tribunal appointments, and environmental current affairs, see Ujiyari.com.