National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010

Students often incorrectly assume the NGT has jurisdiction over all environmental laws. The trap is that the NGT's jurisdiction EXCLUDES the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; the Indian Forest Act, 1927; and various state-level forest acts. Examiners will present scenarios involving these acts to mislead you.

The NGT Act, 2010 addresses the problem of delays and lack of specialized expertise in environmental cases within the regular court system. Regular courts often lack the scientific and technical knowledge to properly assess environmental damage and enforce environmental laws effectively. The NGT provides a faster and more expert-driven approach to environmental justice.

The NGT's limitations include its limited suo moto powers (ability to take action on its own without a formal complaint), frequent vacancies in expert member positions, and the fact that its orders can be appealed in the Supreme Court, which can cause further delays. Also, as mentioned before, it does not have jurisdiction over cases related to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and state forest acts.

In practice, the NGT often hears cases related to industrial pollution. For example, in 2017, the NGT imposed a fine of ₹25 crore on Volkswagen for causing environmental damage through the use of 'cheat devices' to manipulate emission results in its diesel cars. This case demonstrates the NGT's power to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle and hold corporations accountable for environmental violations.

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, amended the NGT Act, 2010 regarding the composition of the selection committee for NGT members. This was controversial because it gave the government a greater role in the appointment process, raising concerns about the independence of the tribunal. Critics argued that this could undermine the NGT's ability to act impartially against government projects that violate environmental norms.

Without the NGT Act, ordinary citizens would have to rely on the regular court system for environmental grievances. This would likely result in longer delays, higher costs, and less specialized expertise in handling their cases. It would be more difficult for citizens to hold polluters accountable and protect their environmental rights.

Critics argue that the NGT often lacks the teeth to effectively enforce its orders. Despite having the power to impose penalties and direct government action, compliance is often slow or incomplete due to bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of resources. To respond, one could acknowledge this weakness but emphasize the NGT's crucial role in raising awareness, setting precedents, and providing a forum for environmental justice that would otherwise not exist.

Several reforms could strengthen the NGT. These include: increasing the number of expert members to ensure a balance of expertise, granting the NGT greater suo moto powers to address environmental violations proactively, ensuring adequate funding and infrastructure to support its operations, and streamlining the process for enforcing its orders. Also, there should be clarity on overlapping jurisdictions with other environmental bodies.

Compared to some other democracies, India's NGT is relatively accessible to the public, allowing individuals and organizations to file cases directly. However, it faces challenges in enforcement compared to countries with stronger environmental protection agencies. Some countries also have more robust mechanisms for public participation in environmental decision-making than India.

The NGT Act mandates that the Tribunal shall make an endeavor to dispose of applications or appeals finally within 6 months from the date of filing. This is important for the UPSC exam because it demonstrates the Act's emphasis on speedy environmental justice. Examiners often test factual knowledge of such timelines.

The NGT comprises both judicial members (retired judges) and expert members (environmental scientists, policymakers). The Act specifies that the NGT should have between 10 and 20 of each type of member. This mix is significant because it ensures that decisions are both legally sound and scientifically informed, bridging the gap between law and environmental science.

The NGT is guided by the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle. These differ from regular courts, which primarily focus on legal rights and liabilities based on existing laws. The NGT's principles allow it to take a more proactive and preventative approach to environmental protection, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty.