PIL in Madras High Court challenges NGT Office Order mandating suo motu matters of "pan-India" implications to be heard only by Principal Bench

The Madras High Court on Friday issued notice to the Central government in a plea challenging an NGT office order which states that suo motu matters having pan-India or Inter-State implications will henceforth be listed before at least three members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench at Delhi. (Meenava Thanthai KR Selvaraj Kumar v. National Green Tribunal Principal Bench and anr).The petition has been filed by NGO Meenava Thanthai KR Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam, through its President R Thiyagarajan..The petitioner submitted that the June 12, 2021 office order issued by the issued by the Registrar General of the NGT, Principal Bench at Delhi goes against the NGT Act and Rules. .Pertinently, the petitioner also raised grievance that the order denies equal access to justice for litigants outside Delhi by creating an impression that litigants would have to approach Delhi, where the Principal Bench is located, for relief.."The entire purpose of creating multiple benches of NGT across the country and dividing their jurisdiction territorially is to ensure that it is easy and convenient for Petitioners approaching the tribunal and that they have better access to justice. The Impugned Order seeks to undercut this intent and thus denies equal access and equal protection of law to litigants who are far from the seat of the Principal Bench in Delhi, who would otherwise have, in the statutory scheme of the NGT Act and notifications under the same, access to such protection. Thus, the Impugned Order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India", stated the petition..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued notice in the matter on Friday. .Taking note of the importance of the case, the Court also posted it next week for further hearing. Advocate M Karthikeyan accepted notice on behalf of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. A copy of the petition is also to be sent to the Additional Solicitor General's office, the Court added. .Very idea of NGT Benches is to facilitate access: Court.Appearing for the petitioner on Friday, advocate Ritwick Dutta pointed out that every environmental case can be interpreted to have a pan-India effect. He went on to argue that the order is such that it takes away the jurisdiction of the Regional Benches of the NGT..Explaining how the order may pose difficulties to litigants located in areas away from Delhi, Dutta submitted further, "What really happens is, the moment the NGT takes a suo motu matter, then it does not entertain applications and petitions filed on the same issue. Now, a person here (in Chennai/ outside Delhi) will also have to go to the Principal Bench. This happened in matters filed by the petitioner.".Chief Justice Banerjee, in turn, observed, "The very idea of Benches is to facilitate access. If everything is concentrated in Delhi, then there is no point in looking outside Delhi.".Dutta went on to point out that the Principal Bench of the NGT is, for all purposes a Northern zone Bench. Other powers it may have are only on the administrative side, he submitted. .The Court proceeded to observe that the case involves important issues that need to be addressed. .It, therefore, issued notice to the Central government and gave a short date for the next hearing. .However, the Court declined to stay the challenged order in the interim, noting that it may create administrative difficulties and completely stop access to the NGT. .The matter will be heard further next Friday..On a related note, another Division Bench of the Madras High Court had recently observed that while the NGT Bench at Delhi for the Northern Zone is referred to as the "Principal Bench", it does not imply that the NGT at Delhi has superior powers over other NGT Benches. .Orders of all NGT Benches apply pan India, reference to NGT Delhi as 'Principal Bench' a misnomer: Madras High Court.While staying the transfer of a case from the Southern to the Northern Zone Bench, the Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and T Thamliselvi had added in their order:"Each Bench will have jurisdiction over a specified area and there is no superior power to any Bench ... The decision given by any Bench of National Green Tribunal, dealing with any issue, will have Pan India effect and it cannot be said that only if the issue is decided by the Bench at Delhi, it will have Pan India effect.".Highlights of the Meenava Thanthai's contentions.1. The June 12, 2021 office order has been contended to be passed without jurisdiction and as being ultra vires the provisions of NGT Act and NGT Rules. The order is an attempt to create jurisdiction when none exists in the statute. The entire NGT Act and the NGT Rules are completely silent on the NGT having suo motu jurisdiction. The order is an attempt to usurp the jurisdiction or change the jurisdiction of other regional NGT Benches, it was stated. The petitioner further highlighted that as per Section 4(3) of the NGT Act, only the Central government may specify the territorial jurisdiction of NGT Benches. 2. The jurisdiction of the Principal Bench in Delhi is restricted to the Northern Zone. There is no provision in either the Act or the Rules which enlarges the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench. Each Bench of the NGT holds territorial jurisdiction over zones specified in notifications dated August 17, 2011 and August 10, 2017. The regional Benches hold complete jurisdiction over matters where the cause of action wholly or partly arises in their territorial jurisdiction. As such, there is no supremacy granted to the Principal Bench in the Northern Zone, the petitioner added. The challenged order seeks to grant judicial supremacy to one Bench over another which is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires the scheme of law, it was contended.3. The challenged order seeks to enlarge the powers of the NGT Chairperson beyond the scope of NGT Act and NGT Rules. On one hand, the challenged order states that all suo-motu matters having pan India/inter-State implications will be listed at the Principal Bench of at least three members. On the other hand, it is noted that the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act states that in composition of a Bench there shall be an equal number of Judicial Members and Expert Members. In such a situation, the only Bench which can have a minimum of three members and have equal number of judicial and expert member is a Bench headed by the Chairperson, it was submitted.4. The challenged order is intended to create a practice whereby cases affecting the entire country or having inter-State implications can only be heard by the Principal Bench in the Northern Zone, it is noted. This effectively creates a belief in the mind of litigants that in such matters, their only recourse would be to approach the Bench in Delhi. This is against the scheme of the NGT Act and NGT Rules which provides for regional NGT Benches. The office order has the effect of conveying to the litigants and the general public that they would need to approach Delhi for relief. This violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India (right to equality) as it would affect the fundamental right of litigants of seeking relief from a Bench close to them. It would also deter litigants from approaching the NGT with issues that have environmental consequences. Not only would this affect the right of the citizens to approach the Tribunal but also have a larger effect of curbing issues of public interest from being heard at all.5. The office order in question is vague and over-expansive since it grants one Bench the sole jurisdiction over matters which have “pan-India implications”. Many environmental matters deal with national resources and may have pan-India implications. Since the concept of ‘pan-India implications’ is not clear and defined the order is deliberately vague and thus unconstitutional. The order thus grants unguided and unfettered discretion to the Chairperson to decide which matters may be taken up by the Principal Bench in New Delhi and at the same time puts an unguided, vague and arbitrary prohibition over other Benches from taking cognizance over matters which may arise in their territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner has submitted. 6. The challenged order is in essence an administrative order and not a legislative order. However, such administrative order runs counter to the legislative order, the petitioner contended. The petition goes on to add that it is trite law that executive instructions that whittles down the effect of the main statute would be struck down. In this case, the petitioner has asserted that the June 12 office order whittles down the jurisdiction of the NGT Benches as granted under Section 4(3) of the NGT Act, Rule 11 of the NGT Rules, and notifications dated August 17, 2011 and August 10, 2017. It further whittles down the inherent power of each NGT Bench under Sections 14(1) and Section 19 of the NGT Act read with Rule 24 of the NGT Rules, it is added..The petitioner, therefore, urged for the Court to quash the June 12, 2021 office order under challenge, terming it to be arbitrary, unsustainable and illegal. .[Read Order]