For this article:

4 Mar 2026·Source: The Indian Express
6 min
RS
Ritu Singh|India
Environment & EcologyPolity & GovernanceNEWS

NGT Faces Expertise Gap, Hindering Effective Environmental Justice

The National Green Tribunal's effectiveness is hampered by a lack of specialized expertise among its members.

UPSC-Prelims●UPSC-Mains

Quick Revision

1.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established under the NGT Act, 2010.

2.

The NGT Act, 2010, mandates a balance of judicial and expert members.

3.

The NGT's purpose is to provide effective and expeditious disposal of environmental cases.

4.

A significant expertise gap exists, with many expert member positions vacant or filled by individuals lacking specific environmental knowledge.

5.

The sanctioned strength for expert members is 10, but currently only 5 are in place.

6.

The deficiency compromises the NGT's ability to deliver robust and scientifically informed judgments.

7.

Lack of specialized knowledge leads to delays, inconsistent judgments, and reliance on external consultants.

8.

The absence of full expert members affects the tribunal's capacity to hear cases across its benches, leading to backlogs.

Key Dates

2010: National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act enacted.

Key Numbers

10: Sanctioned strength of judicial members in NGT.10: Sanctioned strength of expert members in NGT.5: Current number of expert members in NGT.

Visual Insights

NGT's Shifting Adjudication Trends (2020-2025)

A snapshot of key statistics revealing the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) recent performance in environmental and forest clearance cases, indicating a significant shift towards favoring project developers.

Pro-Developer Rulings (2020-2025)
4 out of 5 cases (80%)

Indicates a significant shift in NGT's stance, raising concerns about its original mandate of environmental protection.

Citizen Appeal Success Rate (2020-2025)
20% (65 out of 329)

Low success rate for citizen appeals, often due to technical dismissals like 'time-barred' cases, undermining public participation.

Industry Appeal Success Rate (2024-2025)
88%

The pro-project trend accelerated sharply in recent years, with industry appeals against rejections almost always succeeding.

Mains & Interview Focus

Don't miss it!

The National Green Tribunal, established under the NGT Act, 2010, was envisioned as a specialized body to provide expeditious environmental justice. Its unique dual composition, requiring both judicial and expert members, was a progressive step, acknowledging the complex scientific nature of environmental disputes. However, the persistent expertise gap, with only 5 expert members against a sanctioned strength of 10, fundamentally undermines this institutional design.

This deficiency is not merely an administrative oversight; it severely compromises the NGT's capacity to render scientifically informed judgments. Without adequate technical expertise, decisions risk being superficial, inconsistent, or legally vulnerable, failing to uphold principles like 'polluter pays' or 'precautionary principle'. The original intent was to avoid the delays and technical limitations often seen in traditional courts when handling intricate ecological issues.

The current situation, where some appointed experts lack specific domain knowledge, exacerbates the problem. This leads to increased reliance on external consultants, further burdening resources and potentially delaying resolutions. A tribunal meant for speedy justice becomes bogged down, creating a backlog of critical environmental cases across its various benches.

To rectify this, the government must prioritize a transparent and merit-based selection process for expert members. Specific expertise requirements for different environmental sectors, such as biodiversity, pollution control, or climate change, should be clearly defined. Drawing from a broader pool of environmental scientists, engineers, and policy experts, rather than generalists, is imperative.

Furthermore, regular capacity building and training programs for both existing judicial and expert members could enhance their understanding of emerging environmental challenges. This proactive approach would ensure the NGT remains a robust institution, capable of effectively safeguarding India's environmental governance and its commitment to sustainable development goals.

Exam Angles

1.

GS Paper III: Environment and Ecology - Role and functions of environmental institutions, environmental impact assessment, sustainable development.

2.

GS Paper II: Governance and Social Justice - Access to justice, accountability, role of judiciary/tribunals, issues relating to vulnerable sections.

3.

Essay Paper: Topics on environmental ethics, development vs. environment, judicial activism/restraint.

View Detailed Summary

Summary

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was set up to quickly solve environmental cases using both legal and scientific experts. However, many expert positions are empty or filled by people without specific environmental knowledge, making it hard for the NGT to make good decisions and protect the environment effectively.

Between 2020 and 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruled in favour of project developers in four out of every five cases concerning environmental and forest clearances (EC/FC). An investigation by The Indian Express, analyzing over 100,000 NGT orders since 2020, revealed this significant shift. Specifically, out of 329 appeals filed by citizens and activists against granted clearances, only 20% (65 cases) received relief from the NGT. Conversely, when project proponents appealed against the denial of clearances by the government, they secured relief in nearly 80% (126 of 160) of the cases.

This trend marks a departure from the historical norm observed between 2016 and 2019, when relief for both sides typically hovered between 18% and 31%. The pro-project bias has intensified sharply in the last 24 months (2024-2025), with only 7% of appeals challenging clearances succeeding, while 88% of industry-led appeals against clearance rejections were granted relief.

The Supreme Court's landmark 2021 judgment had affirmed the NGT not merely as an adjudicatory body but as a “specialized” protector fostering environmental justice and equity. Established under the NGT Act, 2010, the Tribunal serves as the primary appellate authority for orders from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or State authorities, adjudicating civil cases involving substantial environmental questions. Its key appellate jurisdiction covers government orders under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980. The NGT operates through five benches located in Delhi (Principal), Bhopal (Central), Pune (Western), Kolkata (Eastern), and Chennai (Southern).

Critics like Deb Goenka, founder of the Mumbai-based Conservation Action Trust, argue that too many appeals are dismissed on technical grounds, particularly as clearances are not publicized in accessible formats, causing economically weaker sections to miss the 90-day appeal deadline. Indeed, a significant portion of the 264 unsuccessful citizen appeals from 2020-2025 were dismissed as “time-barred.” While adverse NGT rulings can be challenged in higher courts, environmental lawyer Ritwik Dutta notes that prolonged litigation deters many. This evolving stance of the NGT has significant implications for environmental governance and public participation in India, making it highly relevant for UPSC General Studies Paper III (Environment and Ecology) and Paper II (Governance and Social Justice).

Background

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established in India under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Its primary objective is to provide 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 the environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The NGT was envisioned as a specialized judicial body, equipped with both judicial and expert members, to handle complex environmental litigation that often requires scientific and technical understanding. Before the NGT's establishment, environmental cases were heard in regular civil courts and High Courts, leading to delays due to the lack of specialized expertise. The NGT was created to fill this gap, ensuring that environmental disputes are resolved efficiently and with scientific rigor. It draws its jurisdiction from various environmental laws, most notably the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, among others. The Supreme Court, in a landmark 2021 judgment, reinforced the NGT's role, stating it is not merely an adjudicatory body but a “specialized” protector tasked with fostering environmental justice and equity. This emphasizes the tribunal's proactive role in safeguarding public interest against ecological degradation, highlighting the importance of its expert members in delivering scientifically informed judgments.

Latest Developments

The recent trend of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruling predominantly in favour of project developers, as highlighted by the 2020-2025 data, indicates a significant shift in its operational dynamics. This development raises concerns about the tribunal's effectiveness in upholding its mandate as a 'specialized protector' of the environment. The increasing dismissal of citizen appeals on technical grounds, such as being 'time-barred,' points to systemic issues in access to justice for project-affected communities, particularly those from economically weaker sections who may lack the resources to track clearances and file appeals within strict deadlines. This shift is occurring amidst a broader global and national discourse on climate justice and sustainable development. Organizations like the NAACP advocate for holding corporations financially responsible for environmental harms and ensuring equitable access to clean energy resources, especially for frontline communities disproportionately affected by pollution. The concentration of 'false climate solutions' and emerging threats like energy-intensive AI data centers in vulnerable communities underscores the ongoing challenges in achieving true environmental equity. Looking ahead, there is a critical need to re-evaluate the NGT's composition, processes, and accessibility to ensure it effectively balances developmental aspirations with robust environmental protection. Measures such as improving the publicization of environmental clearances, providing legal aid to aggrieved citizens, and ensuring adequate representation of expert members with specific environmental knowledge could be crucial next steps to restore public trust and strengthen the tribunal's role in delivering environmental justice.

Sources & Further Reading

1.
2.
3.
4.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. The NGT Act, 2010, mandates expert members. Why is this expertise gap becoming a critical issue now, leading to a "pro-project" bias, and not earlier?

The recent investigation highlights a sharp intensification of the pro-project bias between 2020 and 2025, a departure from historical trends. While the mandate for expert members has always existed, the current situation is critical due to:

  • •Increased Vacancies: Only 5 out of 10 sanctioned expert member positions are currently filled, leading to a significant shortage.
  • •Lack of Specialized Knowledge: Even some existing expert members may lack specific environmental knowledge required for complex cases.
  • •Shift in Rulings: The data shows a stark shift where project developers receive relief in nearly 80% of cases, while citizens get relief in only 20%, indicating a systemic issue that has worsened recently.

Exam Tip

Remember that the NGT Act, 2010, explicitly mandates a balance of judicial and expert members. UPSC might try to trick you by suggesting only judicial members are required or that the expert role is advisory.

2. For Prelims, what is the most critical numerical fact regarding NGT's composition that I should remember, and what common trap should I watch out for?

The most critical numerical fact is the sanctioned strength of expert members (10) versus the current number of expert members (5). This highlights the significant expertise gap.

Exam Tip

UPSC often tests sanctioned vs. actual strength. A common trap would be to confuse the sanctioned strength of judicial members (also 10) with that of expert members, or to assume the current number is the sanctioned strength. Always remember the 'gap' (10 sanctioned, 5 current for experts).

3. The summary mentions citizen appeals being dismissed on "technical grounds" like being 'time-barred'. How does this specifically relate to the expertise gap and impact environmental justice for common people?

The expertise gap can indirectly lead to more dismissals on technical grounds. When expert members are lacking or not specialized enough, the tribunal might lean more on procedural aspects rather than delving into the complex scientific and environmental merits of a case.

  • •Reduced Scrutiny: Without adequate environmental expertise, the NGT may not fully appreciate the nuances of environmental damage or the urgency of a citizen's appeal, making it easier to dismiss on procedural flaws.
  • •Access to Justice: For common citizens and activists, navigating legal technicalities like strict time limits is already challenging. A tribunal less inclined or equipped to understand the environmental urgency might not provide the necessary leeway, effectively denying them justice.
  • •Pro-Project Bias: This approach inadvertently favors project proponents who often have better legal resources to meet technical requirements, further intensifying the pro-project bias.

Exam Tip

When analyzing NGT's effectiveness in Mains, link the 'expertise gap' not just to biased rulings but also to procedural dismissals, showing a broader impact on access to environmental justice.

4. How would I structure a Mains answer if asked to 'critically examine' the NGT's role in environmental protection, specifically incorporating the recent findings about its pro-project bias and expertise gap?

For a 'critically examine' question, structure your answer by first acknowledging NGT's mandate and achievements, then presenting the critical issues, and finally suggesting solutions.

  • •Introduction: Briefly introduce NGT (Act, 2010, objective: expeditious environmental justice).
  • •Positive Role/Achievements: Mention its initial successes in specific environmental cases (general knowledge, not from this data).
  • •Critical Examination (The Core): Highlight the 2020-2025 data (80% relief for developers, 20% for citizens) and compare it to 2016-2019 trends. Explain the reason – 5 out of 10 sanctioned expert positions vacant or filled by non-specialists. Link this to the NGT Act's mandate for balanced judicial and expert members. Discuss how this undermines environmental justice, leads to dismissals on technical grounds (e.g., 'time-barred'), and erodes public trust.
  • •Way Forward/Solutions: Suggest measures like filling vacancies with qualified experts, reviewing appointment processes, and strengthening citizen access to justice.
  • •Conclusion: Reiterate the importance of NGT's original mandate for India's sustainable development.

Exam Tip

Always provide specific data points (like the 80% vs 20% relief) from the news to substantiate your arguments in Mains. This adds credibility and shows you've understood the current developments.

5. Given the current trend of NGT ruling predominantly in favour of project developers, what are the broader implications for India's environmental governance and sustainable development goals?

This trend has significant implications beyond individual cases, potentially undermining India's commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development.

  • •Erosion of Environmental Safeguards: A pro-project bias weakens the regulatory framework designed to protect the environment, potentially leading to unchecked development and ecological damage.
  • •Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): It directly hinders India's progress on SDGs related to climate action (SDG 13), life on land (SDG 15), and clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), as environmental clearances become easier to obtain without robust scrutiny.
  • •Loss of Public Trust: When citizens and activists find it difficult to get justice, it erodes public trust in environmental institutions and may lead to increased social unrest or direct action against projects.
  • •Precedent Setting: Such rulings set precedents that could encourage future projects to bypass stringent environmental norms, assuming they can get clearances through the NGT.

Exam Tip

In an interview, connect specific news developments to broader policy implications like SDGs or constitutional principles (e.g., Article 21's right to a healthy environment) to show a holistic understanding.

6. What should aspirants watch for in the coming months regarding the NGT's functioning and the issue of environmental justice, especially concerning the expertise gap?

Aspirants should monitor any government actions or judicial pronouncements that address the NGT's operational challenges and the expertise gap.

  • •Appointments of Expert Members: Watch for any new appointments to fill the vacant expert member positions and the qualifications of those appointed. This would indicate a direct response to the identified gap.
  • •Amendments to NGT Act or Rules: Any proposed changes to the NGT Act, 2010, or its rules, especially concerning the composition, selection process, or powers of expert members.
  • •Supreme Court Interventions: Look for any cases where the Supreme Court might comment on or issue directives regarding the NGT's functioning, pro-project bias, or the need for specialized expertise.
  • •Reports by Parliamentary Committees or Think Tanks: These could offer further insights or recommendations on strengthening environmental governance and the NGT's role.

Exam Tip

For current affairs, focus on policy changes, judicial pronouncements, and legislative actions. These are concrete developments that UPSC can test. Don't just track the problem, but also the proposed solutions or responses.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the National Green Tribunal (NGT): 1. The Supreme Court's 2021 judgment declared the NGT as a mere adjudicatory body. 2. Between 2020 and 2025, the NGT ruled in favour of project developers in approximately 80% of appeals against the grant of environmental clearances. 3. The NGT's appellate jurisdiction covers orders issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • A.1 and 2 only
  • B.3 only
  • C.2 and 3 only
  • D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: The Supreme Court's 2021 judgment was unequivocal, stating that the NGT is not a mere adjudicatory body but a “specialized” protector tasked with fostering environmental justice and equity. This contradicts the statement that it was declared a 'mere adjudicatory body'. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: Between 2020 and 2025, the NGT ruled in favour of project developers in four out of every five cases (approximately 80%) when *they* appealed against the *denial* of clearances. However, when citizens and activists appealed against the *grant* of clearances, only 20% of appeals were successful, meaning 80% of appeals *against* clearances were *unsuccessful* for citizens. Statement 3 is CORRECT: The NGT's key appellate jurisdiction explicitly covers all government orders, including project clearances, issued under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980. This is a core function of the NGT.

2. Which of the following statements best describes the concept of 'Environmental Justice' in the context of development projects? 1. It ensures that all development projects are approved without any environmental impact assessment. 2. It addresses the disproportionate burden of environmental hazards on marginalized communities. 3. It prioritizes economic growth over environmental protection in all circumstances. 4. It mandates that environmental clearances are always granted to large industrial projects. Select the correct answer using the code given below:

  • A.1 only
  • B.2 only
  • C.3 and 4 only
  • D.1, 2, 3 and 4
Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: Environmental Justice, by definition, would require thorough environmental impact assessments to prevent harm, not bypass them. The idea is to ensure equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Environmental Justice is fundamentally about addressing the fact that marginalized communities, often due to discriminatory zoning or toxic industrial siting, bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and environmental hazards. This is explicitly mentioned in the NAACP source as a core issue for Black communities. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: Environmental Justice seeks to balance economic development with environmental protection and social equity, not to prioritize economic growth over environmental protection in all circumstances. It advocates for sustainable development. Statement 4 is INCORRECT: Environmental Justice would scrutinize large industrial projects to ensure they do not create 'sacrifice zones' or disproportionately harm communities, rather than mandating automatic clearances.

3. Which of the following is NOT a stated reason for the dismissal of citizen appeals by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) as per recent observations?

  • A.Appeals being 'time-barred' for exceeding the 90-day filing deadline.
  • B.Appeals being deemed 'not tenable' or lacking 'any merit'.
  • C.Lack of legal representation for the appellants.
  • D.Clearances not being publicized in accessible formats, leading to delayed filings.
Show Answer

Answer: C

Options A, B, and D are all stated reasons or contributing factors for the dismissal of citizen appeals by the NGT, as per the provided source. The source explicitly mentions that a significant portion of unsuccessful citizen appeals were dismissed as 'time-barred' (A), and others were dismissed as 'not tenable' or lacking 'any merit' (B). Additionally, critics like Deb Goenka point out that clearances are 'rarely publicized in accessible formats,' causing victims from economically weaker sections to miss the 90-day appeal deadline (D). While lack of legal representation (C) might be a practical challenge for many, it is not explicitly stated as a *reason for dismissal* by the NGT itself in the provided text, unlike the other options which are direct grounds for dismissal or factors leading to them.

Source Articles

Mind the expertise gap in NGT | The Indian Express

The Indian Express·4 Mar 2026

First in Operation Sindoor: ‘Red teams’ of experts to map ‘mind of adversary’ | India News - The Indian Express

The Indian Express·4 Mar 2026

Bim Bissell, the mind who shaped FabIndia, dies | Delhi News - The Indian Express

The Indian Express·4 Mar 2026

What is the 'if-then' rule?

The Indian Express·4 Mar 2026

The Psychological Science Behind Viral Mind-Reading Tricks

The Indian Express·4 Mar 2026
RS

About the Author

Ritu Singh

Ecology & Sustainable Development Researcher

Ritu Singh writes about Environment & Ecology at GKSolver, breaking down complex developments into clear, exam-relevant analysis.

View all articles →