Citation: Civil Appeal no.s 12122 – 12123 of 2018
Bench: A. M. Khanwilkar, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. & C. T. Ravikumar, J.
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2021
Introduction
Newspapers and channels often cover the environmental issues which shed light on the negligence of the authorities and other institutions. The courts of the country have often taken suo motu cognizance on the basis of such reports. The ability of this power to go beyond the traditional horizon of justice has compelled the legal luminaries to term it as a “heroic intervention.”[1] In India, after the famous case of Hussainara Khatoon[2], the approach of the judiciary has been proactive and issue-centric. The courts have diluted the jurisdictional limits and powers to serve the purpose of administering justice in times of exigencies. However, it has often resulted in federal as well as jurisdictional issues. One aspect of this realm is the pro-active approach by the tribunals such as the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘the NGT’ or ‘the tribunal’).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ‘the SC’ or ‘the court’) gave its verdict upon the powers of the NGT to register suo motu cases. NGT, a statutory body, has been constituted with an adjudicatory role to decide the disputes which require an exclusive and scientific approach related to environmental issues. The case revolved around the question—whether NGT has the power to take suo motu cognizance of any issue?
Background
An article titled “Garbage Gangs of Deonar: The Kingpins and Their Multi-Crore Trade” was published on the online news platform, The Quint. It highlighted the mishandling of solid waste in Mumbai and elaborated upon its environmental consequences. The NGT took suo motu cognizance of the issue and made the author of the article an applicant in the issue. After the registering of the case, the inspection of the Deonar Dumping site by the concerned authorities revealed that the site which was being used by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter, ‘the MCGM’) violates the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The tribunal ordered MCGM to pay INR 5 Crores as compensation to address the environmental and public health damage caused by its inability to follow the rules. Aggrieved by the order, a group of parties moved the SC and contended that NGT does not possess the power to hear matters on a suo motu basis. Different matters pertaining to the jurisdictional issues of the NGT were clubbed together.
Arguments
The counsels arguing against the NGT contended that the tribunal is a statutory body that cannot act on its own motion. As a creature of the statute, the tribunal cannot undertake suo motu cognizance or judicial review. Even the Amicus Curiae appointed by the court opined that the tribunal lacks the capacity to trigger any action on its own. He, however, acknowledged the suo motu power in cases when it is moved by a party through any format of the application. The counsels representing the central government highlighted the absence of any clause giving suo motu powers explicitly to the tribunal under the NGT Act. Reliance was placed on the case Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi[3] wherein, the court highlighted the statutory parameters of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which confined the jurisdiction of the relevant authorities. Another contention revolved around the applicability of the NGT Act to ‘disputes’. The Amicus Curiae also noted that the NGT was empowered under Section 14 of the Act to adjudicate in an adversarial capacity only. He ruled out the powers to take any preventative, ameliorative or restorative action by the tribunal on its own. The third limb of the arguments was the absence of the judicial review powers to show the legislative intent behind the constitution of the tribunal. The difference between a superior court of record and a court of limited record was also highlighted by the counsels. The appellants also contended that in cases where the legislative intent has been to grant the suo motu powers to an authority, the legislature has explicitly mentioned the same in the Act. The counsels on the behalf of NGT highlighted the exclusive role of the tribunal to support the cause of its suo motu cognizance.
The Ruling
The court highlighted the sui generis nature of the NGT in comparison to the other tribunals and regarded it as a “fairly proactive and responsive institution.” It used the play of Godot effectively to give a judgment that strikes a perfect balance between the division of powers and the necessity before the judiciary. While recognising the highlighted issue as a perceived procedural lacuna, the court acknowledged the asymmetrical relationship between the polluters and the sufferers. It prioritised the concept of equity much more than the concept of equality and moulded the jurisdictional jurisprudence in order to serve the societal interest. By holding the tribunal as a sui generis institution instead of unus moltrum, the court gave legal backing to the special and exclusive role of NGT which has been delineated in the 2010 enactment. It said that the tribunal cannot remain a mute spectator when no one approaches it on an issue. The exigencies compel one to rule out the hands-off mode for the tribunal.
Conclusion
The SC has applied a progressive approach while recognising a special role of the tribunal and eliminating the judicial and procedural lacuna. This acknowledgment in the obiter dicta makes the judgment prudent and reasonable even when it is not in consonance with the certain other jurisdictional judgments[4] on different tribunals. By empowering NGT to take cases on its own volition, the court has empowered it to address the issues in a much more coherent and efficient manner when the issues require urgent attention.
Kunal Yadav
The author is a second year student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.
[1] Marc Galanter, ‘Snakes and Ladders: Suo Motu Intervention and the Indian Judiciary’ (2014) 71 [2] Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. V Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 [3] Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi & Ors. (OA No.115/2013) [4] Rajeev hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath, (2008) 9 SCC 541