COURSE : Biodiversity Protection

COURSE CODE : LAW 4033

SEMESTER : Fall Sem 2023-24

POSTER REPORT

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

(10 NGT Cases relating Biodiversity and it’s Protection)

Group Members :

• 19BLA1054 - Jayaritha V
• 19BLA1010 - Fathima Aseena
• 19BLB1094 - Sruthi B
• 19BLA1008 - Joy Sharmila L
• 19BLA1080 - Negha S
About our poster

In our poster, to justify our topic – National Green Tribunal and most
importantly it’s relevance with Biodiversity and it’s protection, we have
analysed what all areas NGT covers with regard to biodiversity protection
and then we came up with 10 landmark NGT cases relating to biodiversity.
We are team of 5, so each of us took 2 cases and researched about it. We
then came up with pictures depicting and describing the case. In our chart,
in the centre, we painted NGT’s logo, surrounding which we drew 10
compartments for our 10 cases.

In this report we will be giving a brief introduction about NGT and then
Role of NGT in Biodiversity Protection. We’ve then explained all 10 cases
in short. And concluded with our suggestions and way forward that is steps
NGT should take regarding biodiversity and it’s protection.

Our 10 cases are as follows :

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

• Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors.
• Vellore citizens welfare forum v Union of India
• S Jagannath v Union of India
• Samir Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors.
• Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors
• Almithra Patel V UOI
• Srinagar Bandh Samiti v. Alaknanda hydro Power Co. Ltd. & Ors.
• Devidas Khatri V. Union of India
• Indian council for enviro legal action v union of india
National Green Tribunal

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is a specialised judicial body in India that
was established in 2010 to handle cases related to environmental protection and
conservation. It was formed under the National Green Tribunal Act, with the
primary objective of providing effective and speedy resolution of environmental
disputes and promoting sustainable development. The NGT serves as a dedicated
forum for addressing environmental issues and ensuring the implementation of
environmental laws and regulations.

The NGT consists of both judicial and expert members who possess expertise in
various fields such as law, science, and environmental conservation. The tribunal
has the authority to adjudicate and provide judgments on matters relating to the
conservation of forests, protection of wildlife, prevention and control of pollution,
and the sustainable use of natural resources. It exercises powers and functions
similar to a civil court and has the ability to issue orders, injunctions, and even
impose penalties to ensure compliance with environmental norms.

One of the key strengths of the NGT is its expeditious and cost-effective approach
to resolving environmental disputes. It follows principles of natural justice and
provides a platform for individuals and organisations to raise their concerns
regarding environmental degradation. The NGT has jurisdiction over the entire
country and its decisions are binding. It has played a important role in addressing
cases related to industrial pollution, deforestation, waste management, and other
environmental issues, thereby contributing to the protection and preservation of
India's natural resources for present and future generations.

Role of NGT in Biodiversity Protection

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) in India plays a important role in the
protection of biodiversity. The NGT, through its mandate and powers, actively
addresses cases related to biodiversity conservation and ensures the
implementation of laws and regulations for its protection.

Firstly, the NGT serves as a forum for addressing disputes and conflicts that arise
due to activities impacting biodiversity. It has the authority to hear cases related
to the destruction of wildlife habitats, illegal poaching and trade of endangered
species, deforestation, and the degradation of ecosystems. By providing a
platform for affected individuals, organisations, and communities to raise their
concerns, the NGT plays a important role in safeguarding biodiversity by holding
responsible parties accountable and ensuring appropriate remedial actions.

Secondly, the NGT acts as a custodian of environmental laws and regulations

related to biodiversity protection. It interprets and enforces provisions under
various acts, such as the Wildlife Protection Act, Forest Conservation Act, and
the Biological Diversity Act. Through its judgments and decisions, the NGT sets
precedents and establishes legal principles that guide the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity resources in the country.

Furthermore, the NGT promotes the principle of sustainable development in

biodiversity-related matters. It recognises the importance of balancing
conservation efforts with the socio-economic needs of local communities. The
tribunal often considers the ecological significance of biodiversity-rich areas, the
rights of indigenous communities, and the need for participatory decision-making
processes. By encouraging sustainable practices and considering the long-term
implications of human activities on biodiversity, the NGT contributes to the
preservation of ecosystems and their invaluable services.

Lastly, the NGT plays a role in raising awareness and educating the public about
the importance of biodiversity conservation. Through its judgments and public
interest litigations, the tribunal brings attention to environmental issues and their
impact on biodiversity. It helps in sensitising society to the need for sustainable
practices, responsible behaviour, and the protection of fragile ecosystems. The
NGT's efforts in disseminating environmental knowledge and promoting
environmental education contribute to building a culture of conservation and
fostering a greater understanding of the value of biodiversity.

The 10 Cases in the Poster

Samir Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors.

In the case of Samir Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors., the incident involved the
sinking of the M.V. Rak Carrier off the coast of South Mumbai, causing an
environmental disaster due to coal dumping and an oil spill. Adani Enterprises,
responsible for the coal shipment, took no action to address the pollution, leading
to the Indian Coast Guard incurring significant costs to regulate the damage.
Environmentalist Samir Mehta filed a petition before the National Green Tribunal
(NGT), raising jurisdictional questions, liability disputes, and the environmental
impact. The NGT ruled in favor of its jurisdiction, citing India's sovereignty over
maritime zones, and held Delta Group International liable for a ₹100 crore
environmental reimbursement and Adani Enterprises liable for ₹5 crores,
reinforcing the Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles.

The Tribunal emphasized the environmental consequences, categorizing the

sinking as equivalent to dumping and affirming the Right to a Clean Environment
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment recognized the
unseaworthiness of the vessel and held that the respondents were accountable for
damages, underscoring the importance of responsible shipping practices. The
case underscores the application of international conventions, statutory
provisions, and constitutional principles to address environmental issues arising
from maritime incidents, setting a precedent for holding entities accountable for
marine pollution.
Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors

In the matter of Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. UOI, heard at the
National Green Tribunal with the citation M.A. No. 104 of 2012 (Arising out of
Appeal No. 39 of 2012), the case centered on an appeal challenging the
Environmental Clearance granted to a substantial Rs. 6,400 crore hydro project.
Save Mon Area Federation, accompanied by a social activist, contested the
clearance, emphasizing the project's proximity to the wintering site of the Black-
necked Crane, a Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The
region was also habitat to various endangered species, including the snow
leopard, red panda, and Arunachal macaque.

The main issue addressed was the appropriateness of the granted Environmental
Clearance. In a proactive stance, the Tribunal revoked the clearance for the
project. The Tribunal further instructed the Environmental Appraisal Committee
(EAC) to conduct a fresh review of the environmental grant proposal.
Additionally, the Ministry of Environment and Forest was tasked with preparing
a separate report specifically focused on the conservation efforts concerning the
Black-necked Crane, underscoring the significance of protecting the diverse and
endangered wildlife inhabiting the project area.

Vellore citizens welfare forum v Union of India

The Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum filed a PIL regarding pollution caused by
untreated sewage discharge from tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu.
The pollution has contaminated the Palar River, the primary source of water
supply for the area, leading to water scarcity for the population. A survey revealed
that agricultural lands in the tanneries belt have become unfit for agriculture due
to chemical use and groundwater contamination. The petitioner argued that
tanneries should not be allowed to continue operating at the expense of the
environment and public health. The tanneries' counsel argued against the Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board's limits on Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The
court directed the central government to establish an authority to address
pollution issues and imposed fines on tanneries. It ordered the establishment of
treatment facilities, compliance with TDS guidelines, and the closure of non-
compliant tanneries. The court also directed the formation of a special bench to
handle environmental matters and awarded legal fees to the petitioner. The
decision emphasized sustainable development and the protection of public health.

Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors

This case dealt with the ecological and social implications of commercial shrimp
farming in India. The petitioner sought the enforcement of coastal zone
regulations to stop intensive and semi-intensive shrimp farming in ecologically
fragile coastal areas. The Supreme Court analyzed studies on the environmental
impact of shrimp farming, including loss of agricultural land, mangrove
destruction, salinization, and loss of biodiversity. The court emphasized the need
for sustainable development and the consideration of social impacts before
granting permission for commercial shrimp farms. The court directed the central
government to establish an authority to protect coastal areas, implement the
precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, and prohibit the
construction of shrimp culture ponds within the coastal regulation zone. Existing
shrimp farms within the zone were ordered to be demolished. The conversion of
agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, and wetlands for shrimp farming
was also prohibited. Shrimp culture industries could be set up outside the coastal
regulation zone with the approval of the authority, which would assess
compensation for those affected by pollution.

Devidas Khatri V. Union of India

In the case of Devadas Khatri vs. Union of India, the National Green Tribunal
(Bhopal) has mandated the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest and
Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to take immediate action against alleged illegal
mining activities carried out without valid environmental clearance in the buffer
zone of the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. This directive follows an application by
Devidas Khatri, who raised concerns about ACC Cement (now an Adani group
company) engaging in illegal mining without proper environmental clearance
within 10 km of the Ranthambore National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary. The
petitioner's counsel, Rohit Kumar Tuteja, asserted that the cement company had
been conducting unauthorized mining for over five years without any intervention
from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB).

In response to the application, the NGT has requested an action taken report
within three weeks, accompanied by an affidavit from the member secretary of
the State Pollution Control Board, committing to be present during the video
hearing scheduled for September 26. The tribunal has directed the state PCB to
explain the prolonged delay in processing the consent-to-operate application by
RSPCB from 2017 to 2022, inquire into instances where mining leases were
granted without environmental clearance, and provide details on inspections of
mining leases in the red category industry. Additionally, the NGT seeks
information on why no action was taken against the respondent for lack of
environmental clearance and the quantity of minerals excavated by the company
since 2017, including specific details about the excavated areas.

Indian council for enviro legal action v union of india

In the case brought forth by the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action against
a conglomerate of chemical manufacturers in Bicchri, Udaipur District,
Rajasthan, the focal point was the environmentally detrimental activities of
Hindustan Argo Chemicals Limited and its subsidiary Silver Chemicals.
Commencing in 1987, the production of chemicals, including 'H' acid, led to the
generation of hazardous effluents containing iron- and gypsum-based sludge,
causing severe contamination of air and water in the region. The key issues
revolved around the financial responsibility of businesses engaging in harmful
industrial activities, their actions to protect the environment, the liability for
corrective measures, adherence to the strict liability criterion from Ryland v.
Fletcher, and the accountability in cases of harm or fatalities in inherently risky
industries.

The Supreme Court, citing M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, established the law of
total responsibility, holding any entity engaging in intrinsically harmful actions
accountable without the entitlement to offer defenses. Under Article 12 of the
Indian Constitution, industries were deemed "States," making them subject to
legal action for violating fundamental rights. The court directed the defendant
industries to pay substantial fines, compound interest, and legal expenses,
emphasizing the Polluter Pays Principle. Furthermore, it ordered the shutdown of
industrial facilities and plants owned by the respondents, underscoring the
responsibility of those causing environmental harm to cover expenses for
restoration in addition to compensating for damages.

Almithra Patel V UOI

In the case initiated by Mrs. Almitra Patel and others through a PIL under Article
32 of the Constitution of India, the focus was on addressing the pressing issues
surrounding the treatment of municipal solid waste in India. The Supreme Court
transferred the case to the National Green Tribunal due to its significance. The
Tribunal, recognizing the immense severity of the problem, noted the daily
disposal of over a lakh tonnes of untreated raw garbage in various locations,
including land, highways, lakes, and nalas. With the country generating more than
13,760 MT of waste daily as of 2012-2013, the Tribunal deliberated on measures
to rectify the drawbacks in the existing solid waste management system.
In its decision, the Tribunal directed every state and Union Territory to promptly
enforce the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and formulate an action plan
within four weeks. The central government, state governments, local bodies, and
all citizens were instructed to fulfill their respective obligations under these rules
without delay. The Tribunal also issued guidelines to ensure proper waste
segregation before disposal, mandated buffer zones around plants and landfills,
and made absolute waste segregation mandatory for energy plants. Landfills were
restricted to inert waste deposition, subject to bio-stabilization within six months,
and the Tribunal unequivocally prohibited the open burning of waste on land,
including in landfills.

Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Alaknanda hydro

Power Co. Ltd. & Ors.

In the case of Srinagar Bandh Apada Sangharsh Samiti Anr. v. Alaknanda Hydro
Power Co. Ltd Ors, the principal bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT)
ordered Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of GVK Power, to
compensate the residents of Srinagar, Uttarakhand, with a sum of Rs9.26 crore
for the damages and injuries resulting from muck erosion caused by the Srinagar
Hydro Electric Project. The NGT unequivocally dismissed the company's claim
attributing the damage to an "Act of God." In addition to the substantial
compensation, the NGT directed Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. to pay Rs1
lakh each to the applicants and respondent Bharat Jhunjhunwala as costs. The
judgment, delivered by a two-member bench comprising judicial member UD
Salvi and expert member AR Yousuf, is significant as it marks the first instance
of holding a hydro power project accountable for damages during Uttarakhand
floods and imposing environmental compensation.

The Srinagar Hydro Electric Project, operating on the Alaknanda river with a
330MW capacity and a 66m tall dam, became commercially operational in 2015.
The case was brought before the NGT by Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh
Samiti and another local, Vimal Bhai of Matu Jansangthan, seeking compensation
from AHPCL for loss of life, property, and restoration of the affected area during
the floods in June 2013. The applicants argued that AHPCL improperly disposed
of a large quantity of construction-generated muck without necessary safeguards,
exacerbating the flood impact. The NGT's judgment highlighted the power
company's awareness of the geologically sensitive area's susceptibility to
cloudbursts, emphasizing the need for protective measures. Under section 17(3)
of the NGT Act, the bench imposed environmental compensation, deeming the
incident as an accident caused by the hydro power plant, establishing 'no fault'
liability principles.

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the litigation

primarily centered around the conservation and protection of forests in India. The
petitioner, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, filed a writ petition in the Supreme
Court of India seeking measures to safeguard forests against deforestation and
ecological degradation. The case was initiated to address concerns related to
illegal logging, encroachments, and other activities posing threats to the country's
forest cover. Over time, the case evolved into a landmark environmental matter,
and the Supreme Court took a proactive approach in overseeing forest
conservation efforts.

The key issues involved in the case revolved around devising strategies to prevent
illegal logging, encroachments, and activities detrimental to the well-being of
forests. The Supreme Court, recognizing the ecological significance of forests,
aimed to strike a balance between development needs and environmental
conservation. The judgment in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case laid down
guidelines and directions to address these issues comprehensively. The court's
decision emphasized the importance of preserving the ecological balance and
biodiversity, setting a precedent for environmental jurisprudence in India.

Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors.

In the legal matter of Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors., Ms.
Alvares, a resident of Goa, took legal action by filing a writ petition before the
High Court of Goa. The crux of the case revolved around Ms. Alvares' concerns
regarding the construction of a new bridge over the Mandovi River in Goa.
Alleging significant environmental damage and violation of environmental laws,
she contended that the construction activities were causing deforestation, habitat
destruction, and river pollution, posing a direct threat to the ecological balance of
the region. Seeking urgent court intervention, Ms. Alvares demanded a cessation
of the construction and appropriate legal actions against the responsible
government authorities.

The High Court of Goa, after careful consideration, ruled in favor of Ms. Betty
C. Alvares. Recognizing the paramount importance of environmental
preservation, the court held that the construction activities indeed breached
environmental laws and regulations. Consequently, the court issued an immediate
halt to the bridge construction and mandated that the concerned authorities
conduct a thorough environmental impact assessment before proceeding. The
judgment underscored the principles of sustainable development and emphasized
the imperative to safeguard the environment for the benefit of both current and
future generations.

Way Forward

To strengthen its role in biodiversity protection, the National Green Tribunal

(NGT) can take several steps moving forward. Firstly, it can prioritize the
conservation of ecologically sensitive areas and habitats. The NGT can work
closely with relevant government agencies and local communities to identify and
protect biodiversity-rich areas under threat from activities such as deforestation,
encroachment, and unsustainable development. By issuing injunctions and orders
to halt destructive practices and restore degraded ecosystems, the NGT can play
a important role in preserving critical habitats and safeguarding biodiversity.

Secondly, the NGT can encourage the incorporation of biodiversity

considerations in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and development
projects. It can ensure that projects undergo rigorous scrutiny to assess their
potential impacts on biodiversity, and that appropriate mitigation measures are
put in place. The NGT can also emphasize the need for sustainable practices and
the adoption of biodiversity-friendly approaches in sectors such as infrastructure
development, agriculture, and industrial activities. By promoting the integration
of biodiversity concerns into decision-making processes, the NGT can contribute
to the sustainable use and conservation of India's biodiversity.