NGT art.docx

NGT and protection of Environment Introduction: the birth of NGT  The National Green Tribunal was established in the year 2010 in order to uplift the right to healthy environment which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution The courts in India are overburdened with bac!log of cases which ma!es it unfeasible to dispose of environmental cases e"peditiously #asically in environmental cases immediate preventive action is re$uired in order to protect the environment from degradation which the court fails to provide Therefore urgent urgent need was felt for an alternativ alternative e forum so that environment environmental al cases were resolved without much delay  The need for setting up of %nvironmental court was &rst highlighted by the 'upr 'uprem eme e Cour Courtt of India India in (C (eht (ehta a v )*I )*I The The +udg +udgmen mentt high highlig light hted ed the the di,culties di,culties faced by +udges +udges while disposing disposing of environmenta environmentall cases It further observed that -%nvironment Court. must be established for e"peditious disposal of environmental cases and reiterated it time and again As a conse$uence two legislation were enacted by the parliament the National %nvironment Tribunal Act/ 1 and National %nvironment Appellate Authority Act/ 1 The two Acts was utter failure and there was growing demand that some legislation must be passed to deal with environmental cases more e,ciently e ,ciently and e,caciously e,caciously  The 3aw Commission while giving model for NGT referred the practise of the %nvironmental Courts in Australia and New 4ealand The commission relied on -multi5faceted. Court with +udicial and technical inputs As a result NGT was formed/ it is a special fast5trac! $uasi5+udicial body comprising of +udges and environment e"pert who will ensure e"peditious disposal of cases  The Act is also an endeavor of the 6arliament under Article 27 of the Constitution read with %ntry 18 of 3ist I of 'chedule 9II to ful&ll the obligation of  India towards 'toc!holm :eclaration/ 12 and ;io :eclaration of 12 in which India participated/ calling upon the 'tates to ta!e appropriate steps to protect huma human n envi enviro ronm nmen entt and and to deve develo lop p nati nation onal al laws laws rega regard rdin ing g liabi liabilit lity y and and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage

Analysis of NGT working An analysis of the NGT since its inception has been progressive in its approach towards environmental protection in general and the right of marginalienvironment9 and held that it had (#risdiction to entertain all s#ch matters pertaining to the environment as per environmental (#rispr#dence and p#rposive constr#ction of the *+T Act. 2. P. ()ndararajan and Ors. v. The &ep)ty e3istrar Nationa, Green Tri4)na, and Ors. #IG# "O!T OF MA&A(

Decided On: 0;.0;.201 This case dealt ith the iss#e of the validit) and eercise of s#o mot# (#risdiction %) the  *+T #nder the *+T Act. The 7o#rt relied etensivel) on the case of ?nion of "ndia and others v. Ma(or +eneral -hri6ant -harma and another 201 4@5 -cale 3 in coming to its concl#sions. The main concl#sions derived from the said (#dgment are as follos: •

The poer of (#dicial revie vested in the igh 7o#rt #nder Article 223 is one of the  %asic essential feat#res of the 7onstit#tion and an) legislation incl#ding Armed orces Act& 200; cannot override or c#rtail (#risdiction of the igh 7o#rt #nder  Article 223 of the 7onstit#tion of "ndia. 4efer: $. 7handra and -.*. M#'her(ee5.

•

The (#risdiction of the igh 7o#rt #nder Article 223 and this 7o#rt #nder Article @2 tho#gh cannot %e circ#mscri%ed %) the provisions of an) enactment& the) ill certainl) have d#e regard to the legislative intent evidenced %) the provisions of the Acts and o#ld eercise their (#risdiction consistent ith the provisions of the Act. 4efer: Mafatlal "nd#stries $td.5

•

hen a stat#tor) for#m is created %) la for redressal of grievances& a rit petition sho#ld not %e entertained ignoring the stat#tor) dispensation. 4efer: *ivedita -harma5.

•

The igh 7o#rt ill not entertain a petition #nder Article 223 of the 7onstit#tion if an effective alternative remed) is availa%le to the aggrieved person or the stat#te #nder  hich the action complained of has %een ta'en itself contains a mechanism for  redressal of grievance. 4efer: *ivedita -harma5.

5. Bhopa, Gas Peedith Mahi,a !dyo3 (an3athan and Ors. v. !nion of India -!OI and Ors. (!PEME "O!T OF IN&IA

Decided On: 0.0C.2012 "n this case& the -#preme 7o#rt essentiall) dealt ith the iss#e of hether the (o% of  overseeing vario#s 7ommittees involved in the Bhopal Memorial ospital and esearch 7entre 4BM75 and Bhopal Memorial ospital Tr#st 4BMT/Tr#st5 4hich as constit#ted for p#rposes of providing healthcare for affected victims of the Bhopal +as Traged)5 as to %e transferred to the appropriate igh 7o#rt. The 7o#rt also epressl) limited the (#risdiction of the *+T in the present matter. The 7o#rt held that since the present caser does not involve an) comple or other environmental iss#e& and primaril) re=#ires administrative s#pervision of the orders of the 7o#rts& it is appropriate to transfer it to the Madh)a Pradesh igh 7o#rt #nder its s#pervisor) (#risdiction to %etter serve the ends of   (#stice.

6. *e,,ore "iti7ens %e,fare For)ms and Ors. v. !nion of India and Ors. IN T#E #IG# "O!T OF MA&A(

Decided On: 0;.0.2013 This case disc#ssed the genesis of environmental reg#lator) a#thorities in "ndia and specificall) addressed the iss#e of hether the $oss of 8colog) A#thorit) 4$o8A5 sho#ld %e o#nd #p and replaced %) the *+T. The 7o#rt concl#ded in the affirmative and iss#ed the folloing orders: • •

•

The $o8A as a permanent %od) is dismissed. All the claims pending investigation/ en=#ir) on the file of the $o8A shall stand transferred to the 7hennai %ranch of *+T. The period of limitation prescri%ed #nder -ection 14@5 and -ection 1 4@5 or  -ection 13 of the *ational +reen Tri%#nal Act& 2010& ill not appl) to the claims so transferred from the $o8A& in vie of the fact that those claims ere entertained %)

•

an A#thorit) hich had (#risdiction to entertain them& at the time hen the) ere ta'en on file and also in vie of the fact that the period of limitation prescri%ed in the  *ational +reen Tri%#nal Act co#ld not %e made applica%le to cases transferred from another A#thorit). The prescription regarding co#rt fee contained in #le 12 of the *ational +reen

•

Tri%#nal 4Practices and Proced#re5 #les 2011 shall not appl) to the claims transferred from the $o8A& since the) are transferred #nder orders of co#rt& after the a%olition of an A#thorit). "n vie of the h#ge vol#me of claims no getting transferred to the *ational +reen

•

Tri%#nal& the 7entral +overnment shall constit#te& at least one additional Bench at 7hennai& as #nderta'en %) the learned Additional -olicitor +eneral& for the present. The 7entral +overnment shall eamine the constit#tion of another additional Bench& ithin si months& so that the Tri%#nal does not cr#sh #nder the eight of s#ch a h#ge vol#me. The ?nion of "ndia shall consider reha%ilitating the emplo)ees of the $oss of 8colog) A#thorit) hose partic#lars are f#rnished in paragraph ; a%ove %) a%sor%ing them into the *ational +reen Tri%#nal.

The case of corporate giant Mantri Techone !vt "td and #ore Mind $oftware $ervices !vt "td:  The recent +udgment of NGT which was propounded against (antri Constructions Group of #angalore is big boost to the environment and sustainability activism in #engaluru carried out by citiet ect all the construction operation which is being carried out within  meter of la!es %arlier !nown as (anipal %TA Infotech/ the mi"ed residential pro+ect got clearance under 'pecial %conomic 4one ?'%4@ category/ in a =igh 3evel Clearance Committee meeting held during Global Investors (eet in 2000/ when ' ( rishna was the chief minister of arnata!a  The pro+ect that was dormant for a long time got reactivated in recent years The ambitious IT par!5cum5residential pro+ect where (antri :evelopers was a partner/ was planned at a cost of ;s 2700 crore The pro+ect was planned on 2 acres of land between two of #engaluruBs important la!es/ which forms the catchment area for #ellandur la!e The pro+ect was renamed as (antri Tech