[BREAKING] National Green Tribunal has power to register suo motu cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has powers under the NGT Act 2010 to take suo motu cognizance of matters based on letter petitions and media reports (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha)..The judgment was delivered by a three-judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar in batch of appeals. "Given the multifarious role envisaged for the NGT and the purposive interpretation which ought to be given to the statutory provisions, it would be fitting to regard the NGT as having the mechanism to set in motion all necessary functions within its domain and this, as would follow from the discussion below, should necessarily clothe it with the authority to take suo motu cognizance of matters, for effective discharge of its mandate," the Court ruled.The top court held that it was essential for the nation’s well-being to have a flexible mechanism while addressing issues relating to environmental damage and the climate change that comes from it.“In circumstances where adverse environmental impact may be egregious, but the community affected is unable to effectively get the machinery into action, a forum created specifically to address such concerns should surely be expected to move with expediency, and of its own accord.. The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door,” the judgment said..In this regard the Court emphasised on need for purposive interpretation of the National Green Tribunals (NGT) Act, noting that the intention behind a statute should receive careful consideration. The NGT, the apex court said, was intended to address wide ranging societal concerns.“The statute will have to be read in its entirety and each provision of the Act must be given its due meaning by comprehending the mischief it intends to remedy. The mischief that the NGT Act attempted to remedy were underscored in the legislative history, and the pronouncements of the constitutional Courts flagging their environmental concerns,” the judgment stated,.Further applying the tool of interpretation, the Bench discussed provisions of the NGT Act and observed that the rules stipulate wide discretionary powers for the tribunal to secure ends of justice. It was clarified that the power is also coupled with a duty to exercise discretion to achieve this objective.“Securing justice is a term of wide amplitude and does not simply mean adjudicating disputes between two rival entities. It also encompasses inter alia, advancing causes of environmental rights, granting compensation to victims of calamities, creating schemes for giving effect to the environmental principles and even hauling up authorities for inaction, when need be.”.In this regard, the Court placed reliance on the judgments in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. UOI and M.C. Mehta vs. UOI, to stress that the parliament conferred wide jurisdiction on the NGT so that it can deal with issues relating to the environment being dealt with by High Courts or the Supreme Court.“The NGT is not just an adjudicatory body,” observed the judgment reiterating that it performs functions such as prevention, remedy and amelioration as well..The Bench also discussed the judgment in Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation wherein the top court had recognised that the NGT was set up under the constitutional mandate to enforce Article 21 with respect to the environment and, therefore, had special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights..The judgment also highlighted the uniqueness of the NGT as opposed to other tribunals and noted that the Court had appositely observed that the forum had a duty to justice while exercising “wide range of jurisdiction” and the “wide range of powers”..In the context of the NGT’s sui generis role, the Bench referred to the judgment in DG NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch. “Its personnel include technically qualified and experienced members. The powers it exercises and directions it can potentially issue, impact not merely those before it, but also state agencies and state departments whose views are heard, after which general directions to prevent the future occurrence of incidents that impact the environment, are issued,” the Court observed..Therefore, the Court concluded that the NGT was conceived as a specialized forum not only as a like substitute for a civil court but more importantly to take over all the environment related cases from the High Courts and the Supreme Court.The duty to safeguard rights under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot stand on the narrow compass of interpretation, the judgment underscored.“Procedural provisions must be allowed to fall in step with the substantive rights that are invoked in the environmental domain, in larger public interest,” the Bench said..Heavy reliance was placed on the wide implications an NGT decision has on socio-economic dimensions and public at large. “The concept of environmental justice is a trifecta of distributive justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition. Environmental equity as a developing concept has focused on the disproportionate implications of environmental harms on the economically or socially marginalized groups.”.Senior Advocates V Giri, Krishnan Venugopal and Sajan Poovyya appeared for the appellants. The Respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Sanjay Parikh and Anand Grover..[Read Judgment]