Acknowledgment

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Sonali Roy
Choudhary, who gave me the golden opportunity in subject of Environmental Law on the
topic of National Green Tribunal. My teacher also helped me in completing my
assignment. I came to know about so many new things. I am really thankful.

Secondly, I would like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this assignment within the limited time frame.

1|Page
 Index

S.no. Contents
1. Introduction
2. National Green Tribunal
3. Composition of Tribunal
4. Financial and Administrative power of
chairperson.
5. Procedure and powers of Tribunal.
6. Tribunal to apply certain principles
7. Decision to be taken by majority
8. Cost
9. Deposit of amount payable for damage to
environment.
10. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India
11. Indian Council of Environmental-Legal Action
Vs. Union of India
12. A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M.V. Nayudu
II

2|Page
Introduction
Taking into account the large number of Environmental cases pending in higher courts
and involvements of multidisciplinary issues in such cases, as well as the views of the
Supreme Court of India, the Law Commission of India recommended the setting up of
Environmental Courts having both original and appellate jurisdiction relating to
Environmental Issues based on the observation of Supreme Court in Judgments in 2003,
namly
 M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India
 Indian Council of Environmental-Legal Action Vs. Union of India
 A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M.V. Nayudu II
The National Green Tribunal has been established on 18 th October 2010 under the
National Green Tribunal Act 2010, to dispose of the civil cases relating to environment
protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including
enforcement of any legal rights relating to environment.

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

It is a specialised body set up under the National Green Tribunal Act (2010) for effective
and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation
of forests and other natural resources. With the establishment of the NGT, India became
the third country in the world to set up a specialised environmental tribunal, only after
Australia and New Zealand, and the first developing country to do so. NGT is mandated
to make disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing of the same.
The NGT has five places of sittings, New Delhi is the Principal place of sitting and Bhopal,
Pune, Kolkata and Chennai are the other four.

3|Page
Section 4 – Composition of Tribunal
(1) Tribunal Shall Consist of –
 A full time Chairperson.
 Not less than ten but subject to maximum of twenty full time Judicial
Members and Expert Members.
(2) The Chairperson of the Tribunal may, invite any one or more person having
specialized knowledge and experience in a particular case before the Tribunal
to assist the Tribunal cases.
(3) The Central Government specify the ordinary place of sitting of Tribunal and
its territorial jurisdiction.
(4) The Central Government in consultation with the Chairperson of the
Tribunal, makes rules for the practices and procedure of the tribunal
including-
 The person who shall be entitled to appear before the Tribunal.
 Rules as to procedure for hearing applications, appeals and other matters.
 Provided that the maximum number of Expert Members shall, in hearing an
application or appeal shall be equal to number of Judicial Members.
Section 13 – Financial and Administrative power of chairperson.
The Chairperson of the Tribunal shall exercise such financial and administrative powers as
may be vested in him under the rules made by the Central Government:
Provided that the Chairperson may delegate such of his financial and administrative
powers, as he may think fit, to any Judicial Member or Expert Member or officer of the
Tribunal subject to the condition that the Member or such officer, while exercising such
delegated power, continues to act under the direction, control and supervision of the
Chairperson.
Section 19: Procedure and powers of Tribunal.
(1)The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own
procedure.
(3) The Tribunal shall also not be bound by the rules of evidence contained in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
(4) The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act,
the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

4|Page
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from
any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decision;
(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed
by it ex parte;
(i) pass an interim order (including granting an injunction or stay) after providing the
parties concerned an opportunity to be heard, on any application made or appeal filed
under this Act;
(j) pass an order requiring any person to cease and desist from committing or causing any
violation of any enactment specified in Schedule I;
(k) any other matter which may be prescribed.
Section 20 - Tribunal to apply certain principles.
The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision , apply the principles of
sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
Section 21- Decision to be taken by majority.
- The decision of the Tribunal by majority of Members shall be binding
Provided that if there is a difference of opinion among the Members hearing an application
or appeal, the Chairperson shall such application or appeal and decide. Provided further
that where the Chairperson himself has heard such application or appeal along with other
Members of the Tribunal, and if there is a difference of opinion among the Members , he
shall refer the matter to other Members of the Tribunal who shall hear such application or
appeal and decide.
Section 23- Cost
(1) While disposing of an application or an appeal under this Act, the Tribunal shall have
power to make such order as to costs, as it may consider necessary.
(2) Where the Tribunal holds that a claim is not maintainable, or is false or vexatious, and
such claim is disallowed, in whole or in part, the Tribunal may, if it so thinks fit, after
recording its reasons for holding such claim to be false or vexatious, make an order to
award costs, including lost benefits due to any interim injunction.

5|Page
Section 24 – Deposit of amount payable for damage to environment.
NGT by an order, can provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and
other environmental damage (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous
substance), for restitution of property damaged, and for restitution of the environment for
such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.
Case Law : - M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (AIR 1985 SC)

Background- The Oleum Gas Leak Case took place between MC Mehta and Union of
India in 1985, one year after the Bhopal Gas tragedy. Mehta argued that Shriram
Industries, which was situated in a densely populated area in Delhi, should be closed after
it leaked petroleum gas on 4th and 6th December.

Facts of the Case-

o M.C. Mehta, a social activist lawyer, filed a writ petition for the closure of Shriram
Food and Fertiliser Industry, arguing that its location posed a significant risk to
public safety.
o The Assistant Commissioner of Factories and the Inspector of Factories issued two
orders to shut down the plant under the Factories Act (1948) on 7th and 24th
December.

Judgements- The court acknowledged the role of these hazardous industries in economic
development and job creation. For instance, these industries produce chlorine, which is
used for water disinfection. The court's final decision was to relocate such factories to less
populated areas to minimise the risk to human life. The court also recommended that the
government develop a national policy for the location of such hazardous plants and ensure
that they do not pose a risk to the community.

Case Law : Indian Council of Environmental-Legal Action Vs. Union of

India
The petitioner, the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action brought this action to prohibit
and remedy the pollution caused by several chemical industrial plants in Bichhri village,
Udaipur District, Rajasthan. The Respondents operated heavy industry plants there,
producing chemicals such as oleum (a concentrate form of sulphuric acid), single super
phosphate and the highly toxic "H" acid (the manufacture of which is banned in western
countries).
Respondents operated these plants without permits which caused serious pollution of the
environment. Toxic waste water was untreated and left to be absorbed into the earth
causing aquafiers and the subterranean supply of water to be polluted. The soil also
became polluted and unfit for cultivation. Several people in nearby villages were alleged
to have contracted diseases due to the pollution, some of whom had died.
From 1989- 1992, the Court issued orders to respondents, directing them to, among other
things, control and store the sludge. These orders were largely ignored. In 1994, the

6|Page
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) reported on the pollution
caused by respondents, and in 1996, the court held a final hearing on these matters.
The court noted the finding in the Oleum Gas Leak Case II under which an enterprise that
is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, which results in harm to
anyone, is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the
accident. Such liability was not subject to the exceptions of strict liability set forth in
Rylands v. Fletcher. This rule was suited to conditions of India. The Court also endorsed
the polluter pays principle, under which the financial costs of preventing or remedying
damage lie with those who cause the pollution.
The court emphasized that the respondents generated this waste without the requisite
clearances/consents/license, did not install appropriate treatment equipment, did not carry
out the Court’s orders, and had persisted in an illegal course of activity. The damage they
had caused by discharging highly toxic untreated waters into the environment was
indescribable. It had adversely affected nearby villagers, the soil and water, and the
environment in general.
Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 empowered the Central
Government to take necessary measures to protect the environment. Accordingly, the
Central Government would determine the amount of money needed to carry out remedial
measures in this case. Respondents were liable to pay to improve and restore the
environment in this area. Respondents were "rogue industries", and hence all their plants
and factories in Bichhri village were ordered to be closed. Villagers could institute suits in
the appropriate civil courts to claim damages from respondents.
The court held that the Central Government should consider treating chemical industries
separately from other industries, and closely monitoring them to ensure they did not
pollute the environment. Establishing environmental courts was a good suggestion and
would ensure that environmental matters were given the constant and proper consideration
they deserved.

Case Law: A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M.V. Nayudu II

The Court held that the authorities could not grant a NOC to set up industries within 10 K.M.
and set aside the judgement delivered by the High Court.[6] The Court directed the Government
of Andhra Pradesh to identify other industries within 10 Km of the reservoirs and take
appropriate action to prevent pollution to the drinking water in these two reservoirs. The Court
held that the Board shall not permit any polluting industry within 10 Km area and asked them to
submit a report within four months with respect to the industries existing within 10 Km of
reservoirs that potentially caused pollution. The Court also observed that the principle of
promissory estoppels did not apply to the present case.
The Court recommended the Law Commission of India to consider a review of the
environmental laws existing in the country. The Court also recommended the need for
establishing environmental courts consisting of experts in environmental law and members of
the Judiciary.

7|Page
 Conclusion

The National Green Tribunal is a fast-track judicial organisation established with the goal
of resolving environmental disputes at the national level. The way the matters were
handled and justice was delivered by the National Green Tribunal demonstrates that justice
is there for every common man as part of his Right to live in a pollution-free environment,
as stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This has highlighted the necessity of the
public trust theory, which requires the government to act as a trustee of natural resources
for the benefit of all people. As studied above, we can see why the National Green
Tribunal is regarded as “Responsive to Environmental Problems,” which is one of the
qualities of any successful environmental court.

8|Page
 Bibliography

1) Bare Act
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
2) Book
Envirnonmental law , Universal Law publication.

3) Web links:

 https://www.drishtiias.com
 https://leap.unep.org
 https://greentribunal.in

9|Page