POINTERS OF THE NEWS
1. Question of Suo Moto Powers
The National Green Tribunal, a specialized tribunal to deal with environmental matters, was created by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Tribunal was constituted with the objectives of incorporation of an extraordinary court to deal with the fast removal of the cases relating to environmental issues.
The NGT by an order dated May 8th, 2020 took suo motu cognizance of the Vizag Gas Leak. The Respondent Company, LG Polymers appealed before the Supreme Court challenging the exercise of suo motu powers by the NGT. The SC directed LG Polymers to raise the issues of jurisdiction before the NGT itself. The question therefore popularly arose was why can’t the National Green Court take responsibility and provide “some solace” to victims of a pollution-related problem when there is no formal motion.
Consequently, by an order dated June 3rd, 2020 the NGT determined that it has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction and decided the merits of the case.
In its order dated June 3rd, 2020 the tribunal in para 14 observed the following observations:
“NGT has the purpose and power to provide relief and compensation to victims of environment damage, restitution of property, and restoration of environment. To effectuate this purpose, NGT has wide powers to devise its own procedure. Inappropriate circumstances, this power includes the power to institute suo-motu proceedings and not keep its hands tied in the face of drastic environmental damage and serious violation of right to life, public health and damage to property. This is especially so when the victims are marginalized and/or by reason of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach the Tribunal. The power is coupled with duty to exercise such powers for achieving the enumerated objects. Failure to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in such circumstances would render these victims without remedy, causing irretrievable injustice and breakdown of Rule of Law. If NGT were powerless to institute suo-motu proceedings where so warranted, as in the present case, it would be robbed of all its efficacy, because then the situation would be that if environmental damage causes loss of life, public health and property, the court can grant relief only if the victims found the means to approach it first. Such limitation, to a large extent, would emasculate NGT’s raisond’etre, and render it nugatory and futile.
Recently also, Supreme Court said in one of the matters that on August 25 it would hear arguments as to whether the NGT, established in 2010 and dealing with cases related to environmental issues, has the authority to take note of suo motu.
2. Who has the power to take Suo moto cognisance?
Only the Constitutional Courts, the Supreme Courts had the authority to take suo motu power. NGT was not empowered to take notice of Suo Motu. NGT would only act or decide a matter can it be brought to court by someone.
The jurisdiction of NGT is subject to the provisions of Section 14 in conjunction with Section 18. Section 18 (2) of the NGT Act specifies the persons and entities that may seek redressal or compensation or dispute settlement. Under Section 14, the NGT can only exercise its jurisdiction over an application if it is a “civil dispute” involving a significant environmental problem. locus standi is silent about the Suo Motu powers of the NGT.
Section 14 (1) of the Act provides jurisdiction of NGT in the following words:
Section 14 (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
The point to note here is that this section talks about a substantial question relating to the environment. So what does the word “substantial question relating to environment” means? For finding the answer to this question we have to read the 2(m) which defines substantial questions relating to environment as:
(m) “substantial question relating to environment” shall include an instance where,-
(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person by which,-(A) the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or
(B) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial; or
(C) the damage to public health is broadly measurable;
(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution;
(3) NGTs Stand
The NGT has attempted to justify its use of suo motu powers on two grounds. Firstly, it relied on Section 19 of the NGT Act which confers upon the Tribunal power to make its own procedure. The NGT at para 14 of the order has observed that the power to regulate its own procedure, in appropriate circumstances, includes the power to institute suo motu proceedings.
Secondly, it relied on Rule 24 of the NGT Practice and Procedure Rules, 2011 (“NGT Rules”) which confers upon the Tribunal a wide range of powers to pass any order or direction as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order, prevent the abuse of the process and secure the ends of justice. In its concluding remark, it has made an interesting observation that the issue of the procedure is within its discretion, including the powers to issue suo motu proceedings unless expressly barred.
The combined reading of sections 14 and 2(m) pointed out that NGT can decide any matter related to violation of environmental laws and this violation affects the community at large. But the question is still there that is NGT has the power of suo motu cognisance?
In that regard, the Court found that Section 14 of the NGT Act, which deals with Dispute Settlement, should be read with Section 15 (1) (a), which covers the provision of relief and compensation to a “victim” of pollution, and not a “plaintiff” in court.
(4) Other Cases
Also in the case of State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union (2019) 8 SCC 177 the apex court observed that Rule 24 of the NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 gives wide powers to the Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 vests special power to Tribunal to pass orders and issue directions to secure ends of justice. Use of words ‘may’, ‘such orders’, ‘gives such directions’ ‘as may be necessary or expedient, ‘to give effect to its orders’, ‘order to prevent abuse of process, are words which enable the Tribunal to pass orders and the above words confer wide discretion.
The tribunal in para 21 further emphasises that “If this Tribunal is prevented from instituting suo-motu proceedings, these issues and violations would remain unaddressed, citizens’ inalienable right to life and other rights will stand jeopardized, and the serious and irreversible environment damage would continue unchecked.”
Image source: Photo by Sergey Lapunin on Unsplash
About the author
