Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar recently sought a bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Goa as the State could not “afford” to send its officers to Pune and New Delhi time and again to attend proceedings, besides accusing the Tribunal of judicial over-reach. Be that as it may, there is merit in the demand; the need for a NGT bench in every State being one of the vital aspects that was mysteriously omitted from the ground-breaking environmental legislation. It is a question I would examine on a day when the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 completes four years of its coming into force.
The NGT Act has been described as a classic case of judge-driven reform having its main factor in the Apex Courts affirmation of the relevance of a system of specialized environmental courts and designed according to its indicated needs. Riding on the principle equating right to a clean and wholesome environment with right to life under Art 21, Indian courts created the path for groundbreaking laws for environmental conservation and protection. Art 39A of the Constitution directs the State to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizens by economic or other disabilities.
NGT is a court of fact and law, exercising all powers of a civil court in its original jurisdiction, besides appellate judicial powers against orders passed by the authorities concerned under specified environmental statutes. Section 4 (3) of NGT Act enables the Central Government to specify the ordinary places or places of sitting of the Tribunal and territorial jurisdiction falling under such places of sitting. While New Delhi was declared as the principal place of sitting, benches were established in Bhopal (Central Zone), Kolkata (Eastern Zone), Pune (Western Zone) and Chennai (Southern Zone).
International Conventions
The path to the establishment of NGT can be traced to the Rio Summit on Environment and Development (1992). Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration recognised that environmental issues “are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens”; to this end, every individual should have access to information, the opportunity to participate in decision-making and “effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy”. This was followed by the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, 2002 which, inter alia, stressed on ensuring access to environmental information and judicial and administrative proceedings in environmental matters. International conventions to which India is a signatory thus mandated the need for effective and meaningful access to judicial remedy in environmental matters to every individual.
The judicial push
The concept of environmental courts was initially and positively addressed in two major judgments of the Supreme Court of India. In M C Mehta v Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 965), the Supreme Court stated that as environmental cases frequently involve assessment of scientific data, it was desirable to set up environmental courts on a regional basis with a legally qualified judge and two experts, to undertake relevant adjudication.
Law Commission recommendations
Acting on this advice, Law Commission of India reviewed the whole range of environmental law legislation including its objective, consolidation and codification. Its 186th report recommended that a law be made by Parliament for constitution of multi-faceted environmental courts in each State having original and appellate jurisdiction and having jurisdiction of environmental issues, as they exist in Australia, New Zealand and other countries.
Parliamentary panel recommendations
The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests dealt with the issue on two separate occasions. The Committee recommended that Government should setup environmental courts in each and every State and Union Territory to deal exclusively with environmental related matters.
Again, in its report on the NGT Bill 2009, the Committee suggested that that main body did not include the number of places where the Tribunal would sit, it felt that such a limited spread at five places only may lead to serious constraints of accessibility in the long run, especially to the poor and the tribal people who live in far flung areas of our country. This problem had to be viewed in the light of Clause 14(1), read with Clause 28 whereby the tribunal shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is involved. Thus, the poor and the tribal people living in remote areas will be deprived of the opportunity to approach civil courts for redressal of their grievances on substantial question relating to environment
The Parliamentary debate
In the NGT Bill debate there was constructive discussion with several MPs from across the political spectrum pointing out issues such as reduced access to the tribunal and lack of clarity in its composition. In fact M B Rajesh (CPM Pallakad) even moved an amendment Section 4 for establishment of a bench in every State, but it was put to vote and negatived, with the minister stating that “he had an open mind on expanding the number of benches depending on the work-load”. Concluding his address in the Lok Sabha, Jairam Ramesh said:
“We will follow a circuit approach so that access is not difficult for ordinary people…Tribunal will go to the people. People will not come to the Tribunal. I want to assure this and give it a chance. If, at the end of one year, I am proved wrong, I will come back to Parliament, if I am still in this post, and come for the amendment”.
Section 4 (3), however, remains untouched to this day.
A window of hope in ‘circuit’ approach
For the present, the NGT (Practices & Procedures) Rules 2010 providing for adoption of ‘circuit’ procedure leave a window of hope. There have been at least three instances this year itself when circuit benches have been constituted for two-day sittings at Shimla, Jodhpur and Shillong to hear cases pertaining to the respective States. While stepping up pressure on MoEF to revisit Section 4 to enable benches in all States, in the short term the State Government ought to move the NGT to establish a circuit bench at Panjim in interest of accessibility of people of Goa.
(The author is a researcher in environmental law and Director, Goa Forest Development Corporation Ltd)
