Holding

The NGT Act does not oust High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, the direct appeal provision under Section 22 is constitutional, and Section 3 is not an excessive delegation; therefore the bench need not be relocated and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association challenged the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, seeking to relocate the NGT bench from Bhopal to Jabalpur and to strike down provisions they claimed ousted High Court jurisdiction and provided an unconstitutional direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether Sections 14, 22 and 3 of the NGT Act displaced the High Courts' power under Articles 226 and 227, whether every state must have an NGT bench, and whether the appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court was ultra vires. Relying on the basic structure doctrine and precedents such as L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Court held that the NGT Act does not oust High Court jurisdiction and that the direct appeal provision is intra‑vesre. It also found that Section 3 does not constitute excessive delegation and that bench locations may be determined based on exigencies, not a requirement to have a bench in every state. Consequently, the petition to relocate the bench and to strike down the contested provisions was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the National Green Tribunal ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act.
Whether a seat of the NGT should be in every State and, if so, whether it must be at the principal seat of the High Court.
Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is ultra vires and whether an appeal mechanism to the High Courts should be provided.
Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act is ultra vires as an excessive delegation of power to the Central Government.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 14, s. 21, s. 22, s. 3
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

Subjects

National Green TribunalHigh Court jurisdictionArticles 226 and 227Basic structure doctrineJudicial reviewExcessive delegationBench locationEnvironmental lawDirect appeal to Supreme CourtWrit jurisdiction

Judgment

[2022] 15 S.C.R. 299 299

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR A
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2012) B
MAY 18, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
ss. 14, 21 – Jurisdiction of the High Court, if ousted by the C
NGT – Held:Nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or
explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts u/Arts. 226 and
227 – Power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by
the NGT Act –Prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is
neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as it is a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and D
227.
National Green Tribunal – Seat of the NGT – Plea that there
should be NGT Bench in every State – Held: Seat of the NGT benches
can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate
them in every State – Prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to E
Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected.
s.22 – Remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the
decisions of the NGT u/s. 22 – Held: Remedy of direct appeal to the
Supreme Court u/s. 22 is ultra vires the Constitution – As regards,
the appeal mechanism to the High Court from the decisions of the F
NGT, the remedy before the High Court for a litigant u/Art. 226 and
227 continues to be available notwithstanding the enactment of the
NGT Act and the provision for appeal to the Supreme Court u/s. 22
– Constitution of India.
s. 3 – Validity of – Held: s. 3 is not a case of excessive G
delegation of power to the Central Government – s. 3 is found to be
ultra vires the Constitution – Constitution of India.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The National Green Tribunal under Section 14
& 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 does not oust the H
299
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is
a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The remedy of
direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT
Act is intra vires the Constitution of India. Section 3 of the NGT
Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central
Government. The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per
B
exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State.
The prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is
unmerited and is rejected. [Para 38][233-G-H; 323-A-C]
Whether the NGT ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction under
Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act?
C
2. The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227,
and 32 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the
same is inviolable. The NGT is within the purview of Article 226
and 227 jurisdiction of the High Courts. The High Courts have
been entertaining petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the
D Constitution against orders of the NGT. While exercising such
jurisdiction, the Courts necessarily exercise due discretion on
whether to entertain or to reject the petition. Nothing contained
in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction
of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and the power of
E judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act.
The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither
taken away nor it can be ousted, as without any doubt, it is
definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The
High Court’s exercise their discretion in tandem with the law
depending on the facts of each particular case. Since the High
F Court’s jurisdiction remain unaffected, the first question is
answered in the negative, against the petitioners. [Paras 12-
15][314-C, G-H; 315-A, F-H; 316-A]
L Chandra Kumar v. UOI 1997 (3) SCC 261 : [1997]
(2) SCR 1186 – relied on.
G
Whether a seat of the NGT should be in every State? If
yes, should they invariably be established at the principal seat of
High Court, which in this case would be Jabalpur instead of
Bhopal?

H
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 301
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA

3.1 The NGT caters to a limited number of cases unlike A
the CAT, where the volume of cases is substantially higher. The
volume of cases handled by the NGT and the CAT are not
comparable. Looking at the large volume of service-related cases,
it was suggested that the Benches of the CAT should be located
at the seat of each High Court. But such logic cannot apply to the
B
NGT, where the zone wise pendency in aggregate is only 2237
cases as on 31.3.2022 from the date of its inception. [Paras 17
and 19][316-G; 317-E]
3.2 With the low case load, if the NGT Benches are set up
in all 28 States and 8 union territories, the judges and other
members in these forums might be left twiddling their thumbs. C
Accordingly, no basis is seen to allow one NGT bench in every
State. [Para 21][317-H; 318-A]
3.3 The petitioner put forth that the seat of the NGT must
be at Jabalpur where the principal seat of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court is located. The Bhopal Bench caters to multiple States. D
In such a situation, the location of the Bench to the extent
possible, should be convenient and accessible to litigants of all
three States. Here the respondents project that Bhopal is
centrally located in relation to Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, &
Chhattisgarh. Moreover, Bhopal being the capital of Madhya E
Pradesh, is well connected and accessible without much difficulty.
This would commend that Bhopal is a sound locational choice for
the NGT which caters to the litigants from three States. [Para
22][318-B-D]
3.4 The low case load in the Bhopal Bench, do not match F
with the strident plea of the petitioners to locate the Bench at
Jabalpur. This is therefore perceived as an attempt by the
petitioners (who are practicing lawyers in Jabalpur), to primarily
espouse their professional interest. No other rational basis is
seen for the Association’s plea for relocation of the NGT Bench
to Jabalpur from Bhopal. There is no justification to grant such G
relief to the petitioners. [Para 23][318-E]
S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC
124 : [1987] (1) SCR 435 – held inapplicable.

H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from the decisions of the NGT under Section 22 of the
NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution? Whether an appeal
mechanism be provided to the High Courts from the decisions
of the NGT?
B 4.1 It needs to be observed that even when a direct appeal
to the Supreme Court is provided by a statute against the decision
of a tribunal , the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the
High Court remains unextinguished. Moreover, the Appeal under
Section 22 of the NGT Act, is limited to the grounds under Section
100 of the CPC and the Supreme Court does not function as a
C regular first appellate Court. However, under Article 226 or 227,
remedies on issues of jurisdiction and also under the principles
set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury
Corporation, are available for an aggrieved party. Subject to
discretion being exercised, the affected litigants can move High
D Court under Article 226 or 227 and in such cases, a SLP under
Article 136 of the Constitution could also be maintained to the
Supreme Court from the High Court’s verdict. Also importantly,
the right to appeal before the High Court is a creature of the
statute and is not an inherent right. The provision for appeal to
High Court should not therefore be created by issuing a writ of
E Mandamus as that would be legislating through judicial order,
and would impinge upon the well-founded concept of separation
of powers. The options available to a litigant to either move to
the Supreme Court in a case where a substantial question of law
arises or proceed under Article 226 or 227 must not also be
F overlooked. If necessary, a party can also approach this Court by
way of an Article 136 petition. With such choices being available
for a party no rational justification is found for striking down
Section 22 of the Act which provides for a direct appeal to the
Supreme Court. [Paras 24-26][319-A-E]
G 4.2 A litigating party must also realise that in any event, if
the opposite side approaches the Supreme Court, the litigant on
the other side would have to defend his case before this Court
and at that stage they cannot be complaining about the distance
to Delhi. Thus, the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court

H
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 303
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA

under the NGT Act from the NGT’s decision cannot be seen as A
denial of access to justice to the litigants in the field of
environmental law. [Para 27][319-F]
4.3 It must also be underscored that the ground raised by
the Petitioners about Supreme Court being inaccessible, would
equally apply to litigants, from all across the country, who have to B
travel to the Supreme Court, either by way of Article 136 or Article
32 or any other provision. Despite the provision under Article
130 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no other bench
away from Delhi. In these circumstances by pleading
inaccessibility, the petitioners are also incidentally questioning,
the location of the Supreme Court at New Delhi. Such a contention C
on the face of it would be irrational and not acceptable. [Para
30][320-D-E]
4.4 It cannot also be overlooked that it is the Supreme Court
itself which had recommended the setting up of environmental
court with direct appeals to the Supreme Court. This would also D
support the proposition on constitutional validity of Section 22 of
the NGT Act and that it is not ultra vires to the Constitution.
[Para 31][320-F]
Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the
Constitution as suffering from the vice of excessive delegation? E

5.1 It must be borne in mind that the operationalization of
the NGT, including the location of its Benches, was closely
monitored by the Supreme Court. It is further seen that the Union
Government is to specify the ordinary place of sitting of NGT
and its territorial jurisdiction under Section 3 of the NGT Act F
being mindful of the demand for environment litigation within a
particular territorial area. The Government is also to be guided
by the objects of the Act as also the directions given by the
Supreme Court from time to time. Since, the Government is acting
on the issue with the guidance of this Court, and the Government G
is obliged to follow the objectives of the NGT Act, adequate
safeguards are seen to guide the government. The Court is
therefore of the opinion that Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a
case of excessive delegation. [Para 32][321-A-C]

H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India and Anr.
(2014) 10 SCC 1 : [2014] (10) SCR 1 – held
inapplicable.
5.2 Section 3 of the NGT Act is found to be intra vires to
the Constitution of India. However, it is clarified that the
B conclusion is based on the specific facts of this case. [Para 36][322-
F]
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 176 : [1986]
(1) SCR 312; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212 : [1996] (2) SCR
C 503; Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India
(1996) 5 SCC 647 : [1996] (5) Suppl. SCR 241; A.P.
Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2
SCC 718 : [1999] (1) SCR 235; A.P. Pollution Control
Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62 : [2000]
(5) Suppl. SCR 249; Union of India Vs. Vimal Bhai
D SLP(C) No. 12065 of 2009; Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors. 2021 SCC
Online SC 897; Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward
Foundation (2019) 18 SCC 494; Whirlpool Corpn. Vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998)
E 8 SCC 1 : [1998] (2) Suppl. SCR 359; Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury
Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; R.K. Jain v. Union of
India (1993) 4 SCC 119 : [1993] (3) SCR 802; Rojer
Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1 :
[2019] (16) SCR 1 - referred to.
F
Case Law Reference
[1986] (1) SCR 312 referred to Para 5.1
[1996] (2) SCR 503 referred to Para 5.1
[1996] (5) Suppl. SCR 241 referred to Para 5.1
G
[1999] (1) SCR 235 referred to Para 5.1
[2000] (5) Suppl. SCR 249 referred to Para 5.1
(2019) 18 SCC 494 referred to Para 8

H [1997] (2) SCR 1186 relied on Paras 12, 13, 14
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 305
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA

[1998] (2) Suppl. SCR 359 referred to Para 14 A
[1987] (1) SCR 435 held inapplicable Paras 19, 22
[1993] (3) SCR 802 referred to Para 28
[2019] (16) SCR 1 referred to Para 29
[2014] (10) SCR 1 held inapplicable Para 34 B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
433 of 2012.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Siddhartha R. Gupta, Mrigank Prabhakar, Shivam Singh Baghel, C
Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advs. for the Appellants.
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Saurabh Mishra,
Amol Chandan, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Aman Sharma,
Manvendra Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mishra Saurabh, Rajan Kumar
Chourasia, Sunny Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Through this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the Madhya Pradesh High E
Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association, both
with their registered offices at Jabalpur, have raised a challenge to the
vires of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred
to as “the NGT Act”), and pray for the following reliefs: -
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or any other writ of F
similar nature directing that the Bench of National Green Tribunal
be set up at all the places where the principal seat of High Court
is situated.
(b) Hold and declare that the proposed sitting up of Bench of
NGT at Bhopal is not constitutionally and/or sustainable,
G
(c) Declare the provision of Section 14 r/w 22 of the National
Green Tribunal Act, as unconstitutional insofar as they purport to
exclude the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India.”
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A 2. The issues to be considered in this writ petitionare:-
A. Whether the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as “the NGT”) ousts the High Court’s
jurisdiction under Sections 14& 22 of the NGT Act?
B. Whether a seat of the NGT should be in every State? If
B yes, should they invariably be established at the
principal seat of High Court, which in this case would
be Jabalpur instead ofBhopal?
C. Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from the decisions of the NGT under Section 22
C of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution?Whether
an appeal mechanism be provided to the High Courts
from the decisions of the NGT?
D. Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the
Constitutionas suffering from the vice of excessive
D delegation?
3. We have heard Mr. Siddhartha R. Gupta, the learned counsel
for the petitioners. The Union of India is represented by Mr. K.K.
Venugopal, the learned Attorney General for India together with Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General. The State of
Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 2) is represented by Mr. Sunny
E
Choudhary, learned counsel.
Arguments on behalf of Petitioners
4.1 The petitioners, who are espousing the cause of the Jabalpur
based lawyers practicing before the High Court and the Civil Courts,
F contend that the Bhopal Bench of the NGT is located arbitrarily and the
decision is inconsistent with the direction in S.P. Sampath Kumar vs.
Union of India1 where this Court observed that for ensuring the efficacy
and efficiency of any Tribunal, its seat should be at a place where the
principal seat of the High Court is situated. As the Bench of the NGT is
set up at Bhopal for catering to the environment related cases covering
G three States i.e., Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan, the
petitioners pray for setting up the Benches of the NGT at the principal
seats of the High Courts in each of the three States and for their State of
MP, the petitioners want it at Jabalpur.

1
H (1987) 1 SCC 124, Para. 8.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 307
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

4.2 According to the petitioners, environmental litigation is A
predominantly related to local factors and therefore, an easily accessible
and available forum is necessary to be constituted, without requiring the
litigants to move to distant places to secure environmental justice.
4.3 The petitioners argue that through incorporation of Section 14
and Section 22 in the NGT Act, the jurisdiction and the role of the High B
Courts under Article 226/227 is extinguished. This, therefore, has
impacted the basic feature of the Constitution and as such the provisions
of Section 14 read with Section 22 of the NGT Act should be struck
down to the extent they divest the High Courts of their power as a
superior Court.
C
4.4 Adverting to the power of the Central Government to identify
the ordinary place of sitting of the NGT and specifying their respective
territorial jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the NGT Act, the petitioners
argue that such power being unguided, suffers from the vice of excessive
delegation. Laying stress on location of the NGT Bench at Jabalpur
D
where adequate infrastructure is available, the petitioners question the
choice of the seat at Bhopal instead of at Jabalpur, which is the principal
seat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. According to the petitioners,
this impacts the right of the litigant in the field of environmental law, to
access justice.
4.5 The remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 E
of the NGT Act in the petitioner’s perception, practically amounts to
denial of access to justice for the economically vulnerable litigants and
this is contended to defeat the inherent objective of access to justice by
bypassing the conveniently accessible remedy before the High Courts
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. F
4.6 The petitioners next argue that the NGT does not enjoy the
authority and autonomy available to judges in the High Courts and bearing
in mind the conditions of service, tenure, and other aspects of the judicial
and non-judicial members of the NGT, according to the petitioners, it is
neither an effective nor an appropriate substitute of the High Courts, G
which were entertaining environmental disputes through respective Green
Benches, prior to the enactment of the NGT Act. More specifically, the
process of appointment, service conditions and other related provisions
for appointment of presiding members of the NGT are not at par with
the judges of the High Court and therefore, the NGT can only play a
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A “supplemental or subservient role instead of being an effective and
appropriate substitute for the High Courts.”
Arguments on behalf of Respondent
5.1 Per contra, Mr. K K Venugopal, the learned Attorney General
leading the arguments for the respondent’s project that the NGT was
B set up because of the prodding and recommendations made by the
Supreme Court while dealing with environmental cases and the
Parliament was repeatedly entreated by the Court to create specialized
environmental court with qualified judges and technical experts on the
Bench.The learned Attorney General refers to the exhortations made
by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India2, Indian
C Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India3, Vellore Citizens’
Welfare Forum v. Union of India4, A.P. Pollution Control Boardv.
Prof. M.V. Nayudu5 and A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V.
Nayudu6 and their acceptance by the Parliament, following the 186th
Report of the Law Commission which lead tothe establishment of
D environmental courts. The Law Commission suggested in its Report that
appeals from the environmental courts should lie before the Supreme
Court. It is in this backdrop the learned AG submits that the NGT Act
was enacted and the environmental cases which were hitherto heard by
green benches in the High Court, were ordered to be transferred to the
NGT by the Supreme Court itself as the same would help in rendering
E expeditious and specialized justice in the field of environment.
5.2 Insofar as the creation and setting up of the NGT and the
location of their Benches, the learned AG submits that this was done
under the active supervision of the Supreme Court and only after the
proposed places ofsitting recommended by the Central Government
F received the concurrence of this Court, the concerned Benches and
their place of sitting was notified by the Central Government. It is therefore
argued that the related notification had the imprimatur of the Supreme
Court. The respondents point out that the Supreme Court monitored and
oversaw the implementation of the NGT Act and setting up of its Benches
in Union of India Vs. Vimal Bhai (SLP(C) No. 12065 of 2009) and
G
the various orders passed on 19.9.2011, 6.12.2012 and 15.3.2013 by this
2
(1986) 2 SCC 176, Para. 22.
3
(1996) 3 SCC 212, Para. 6.
4
(1996) 5 SCC 647, Para. 25.
5
(1999) 2 SCC 718, Para. 23, 42, 47, 48, 52.
H 6
(2001) 2 SCC 62, Para. 73.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 309
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

Court would reflect that individual Bench of the NGT was set up to A
cater to multiple States and the location so chosen for the NGT at
Bhopal,also had the approval of the Supreme Court.
5.3 The learned Attorney General next contends that the remedy
before the High Court for a litigant under Article 226 and 227 continues
to be available notwithstanding the enactment of the NGT Act and the B
provision for appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT
Act.It is specifically submitted by the learned AG that the High Court’s
power of judicial review remains unaffected by the NGT Act as it is a
part of the basic structure of our constitution, as was declared in L
Chandra Kumar v. UOI7.
C
BACKDROP OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
6. The precursor to the NGT Act was the 186th Report of the
Law Commission of India dated 29.3.2003 which came after the Supreme
Court repeatedly urged Parliament through various judgments to establish
specialized environmental courts, with qualified judges and technical D
experts on the bench. The Supreme Court also put forward that there
should be direct appeals to the Supreme Court from such environmental
courts. The Law Commission then recommended creation of a
specialized court to deal with the environmental issues. The Law
Commission expressed the view that it is not convenient for the High
Courts and the Supreme Court to make local inquiries or to receive E
evidence. Moreover, the superior Courts will not have access to expert
environmental scientists on permanent basis to assist them. The NGT
was conceived as a complementary specialized forum to deal with all
multi-disciplinary environmental issues, both as original as well as an
appellate authority.The specialized forum was also made free from the F
rules of evidence applicable to normal courts and was permitted to lay
down its own procedure to entertain oral and documentary evidence,
consult experts etc., with specific mandate to observe the principles of
natural justice.
7. In order to understand the objective of the NGT Act, we may G
usefully extract the following from the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.8 where the following was
stated by one of us (Justice Hrishikesh Roy) for the 3 Judges Bench: -

7
1997 (3) SCC 261.
8
2021 SCC Online SC 897. H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A “24 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act
will now require attention. Paras 2,3,4,5 and 6 of the Statement
of Objects and Reasons being relevant are extracted
hereinbelow: -
“2. India is a party to the decisions taken at the United
B Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at
Stockholm in June, 1972, in which India participated,
calling upon the States to take appropriate steps for the
protection and improvement of the human environment. The
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development held at Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992, in which
C India participated, has also called upon the States to
provide effective access to judicial and administrative
proceedings, including redress and remedy, and to develop
National laws regarding liability and compensation for the
victims of pollution and other environmental damage.
D 3. The right to healthy environment has been construed as
a part of the right to life under article 21 of the Constitution
in the judicial pronouncement in India.
4.The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was
enacted to provide for strict liability for damages arising
E out of any accident occurring while handling any
hazardous substance and for the establishment of a
National Environmental Tribunal for effective and
expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident,
with a view to giving relief and compensation for damages
F to persons, property and the environment. However, the
National Environment Tribunal, which had a very limited
mandate, was not established. The National Environment
Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was enacted to establish the
National Environment Appellate Authority to hear appeals
with respect to restriction of areas in which any industries,
G operations or processes or class of industries, operations
or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried
out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. The National Environment Appellate
Authority has a limited workload because of the narrow
H scope of its jurisdiction.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 311
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

5. Taking into account account the large number of A
environmental cases pending in higher courts and the
involvement of multidisciplinary issues in such cases, the
Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to
consider the need for constitution of specialized
environmental courts. Pursuant to the same, the Law
B
Commission has recommended the setting up of
environmental courts having both original and appellate
jurisdiction relating to environmental laws.
6.In view of the foregoing paragraphs, a need has been
felt to establish a specialized tribunal to handle the C
multidisciplinary issues involved in environmental cases.
Accordingly, it has been decided to enact a law to provide
for the establishment of the National Green Tribunal for
effective and expeditious disposal of civil cases relating
to environmental protection and conservation of forests
and other natural resources including enforcement of any D
legal right relating to environment.”
25. A reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons shows
that paragraph 4 thereof refers to the National Environmental
Tribunal Act, 1995 (NET) which provided for strict liability
and damages arising out of accidents occurring while E
handling hazardous substances. In the same context it was
observed that the NET had a very limited and narrow mandate
and jurisdiction. Thereafter, in Para 5 it has been recorded
that a large number of environmental cases are pending in
higher Courts which involve multi-disciplinary issues and, in F
such cases, the Supreme Court had requested the Law
Commission of India to consider the need for constitution of
specialized environmental Courts.
26. Significantly, the Statement of Objects and Reasons also
refers to right to a healthy environment being a part of the G
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
was consistent with the earlier mentioned 186th Law
Commission Report highlighting that the body so created,
would aim to “achieve the objectives of Article 21, 47, 48A,
51A (g) of the Constitution of India by means of a fair, fast
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A and satisfactory judicial procedure”. An institution concerned
with a significant aspect of right to life necessarily should be
given the most liberal construction.
27. The paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons
refers to the United Nations Conference on the Human
B Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972 which called
upon governments and peoples to exert common efforts for
the preservation and improvement of the human environment
when it involved people and for their posterity. Therefore,
the municipal law enacted with such a laudatory objective of
not only preventing damage to the environment but also to
C
protect it, must be provided with the wherewithal to discharge
its protective, preventive and remedial function towards
protection of the environment. The mandate and jurisdiction
of the NGT is therefore conceived to be of the widest amplitude
and it is in the nature of a sui generis forum.
D
28. The United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development held at Rio De Janeiro in June, 1992 where India
participated, impressed upon the States to provide effective
access to judicial and administrative proceedings, lay out
redress and remedy and to develop national laws regarding
E liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and
other environmental damage. The Preamble of the Act
significantly emphasized on construing the right to healthy
environment as a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of
the Constitution which was accepted by various judicial
pronouncements in India. The National Green Tribunal was
F
born in our country with such lofty dreams to deal with multi-
disciplinary issues, relating to the environment.
29. The limited mandate conferred on the earlier forum i.e.
the NET and the narrow scope of jurisdiction of the National
Environment Appellate Authority along with the involvement
G
of multi-disciplinary issues arising in environmental cases,
were intended to be addressed through the constitution of the
NGT.”
8. Explaining the purpose to constitute the specialized court to
deal with environmental issues, in Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs.
H
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 313
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

Forward Foundation9, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer writing for the three A
Judges Bench made the following pertinent observation, on the status
of the NGT: -
“40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional
mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the
Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at the B
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
The Tribunal is a specialised judicial body for effective and
expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forests and other natural
resources including enforcement of any legal right relating
to the environment. The right to healthy environment has been C
construed as a part of the right to life under Article 21 by
way of judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal has
special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights.”
9. The NGT is set up under the constitutional mandate under Entry
13 List I of Schedule VII to enforce Article 21 in regard to the D
environment and the Tribunal was conferred special jurisdiction for
enforcement of environmental rights. It thus appears that the role of the
NGT was not simply adjudicatory, but it also had the equally vital role
which is preventive, ameliorative, or of the remedial category. The
functional capacity of the NGT was intended to leverage wide powers E
to do full justice in the field of environment.The NGT came into existence
as a sui generis institution established for the enforcement of environmental
rights emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution10.
10. After the NGT was set up, the Supreme Court pertinently
directed the transfer of environmental cases pending before the High F
Courts to the NGT for expeditious and specialized justice for all
concerned. The Supreme Court also actively oversaw the implementation
of the Act and creation of the NGT itself through various Orders11.
Those also pertained to, inter-alia, the location of the NGT benches. In
other words, the Supreme Court was not only conscious of the location
of the benches of the NGT but also had given its imprimatur to the G
NGT’s creation and other aspects.

9
(2019) 18 SCC 494.
10
2021 SCC OnLine 897, Para. 44, 98.
11
SLP (C) 12065 of 2009. H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A 11. With the above prefatory contexts in mind, we may now look
at the challenge.
ISSUE WISE DISCUSSION
A. Whether the NGT ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction
under Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act?
B
12. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that there is ouster
of jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution because of Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act, it must be
recalled that in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India[supra], it has
been categorically declared that the power of judicial review under
C Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic structure of our constitution
and the same is inviolable.The following pertinent opinion rendered by
the 7 Judges’ bench of this Court must be remembered on this aspect: -
“78………We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review
over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article
D 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is
an integral and essential feature of the Constitution,
constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore,
the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the
constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or
E excluded.
79. We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to
exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all
courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is
also part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is
F because a situation where the High Courts are divested of all
other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional
interpretation, is equally to be avoided.”
13. Apart from the clear enunciation on legal position to the effect
that the NGT is within the purview of Article 226 and 227 jurisdiction of
the High Courts, the learned Attorney General on behalf of the Union of
G
India has also made submissions consistent with L. Chandra
Kumar[supra] and conceded the legal position.
14. It can further be noted that in terms of the above ratio in L.
Chandra Kumar [supra], the High Courts have been entertaining
petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution against orders of
H
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 315
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

the NGT. While exercising such jurisdiction, the Courts necessarily A
exercise due discretion on whether to entertain or to reject the petition,
as per the test broadly laid down in Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others12;
“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226
of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by B
any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be
exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution
but also for “any other purpose”. C

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,
having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court
has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is
that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the D
High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But
the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court
not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,
where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of
any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a E
violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order
or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of
an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this
point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we
would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of
the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” F

15. It is also noteworthy that nothing contained in the NGT Act
either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts
under Article 226 and 227 and the power of judicial review remains
intact and unaffected by the NGT Act.The prerogative of writ jurisdiction
of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as without G
any doubt, it is definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The High Court’s exercise their discretion in tandem with the law
depending on the facts of each particular case. Since the High Court’s

12
(1998) 8 SCC 1. H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A jurisdiction remain unaffected, the first question is answered in the
negative, against the petitioners.
B. Whether a seat of the NGT should bein every State? If
yes, should they invariably be established at the
principal seat of High Court, which in this case would
B be Jabalpur instead of Bhopal?
16. The petitioners in pleading for a NGT Bench in each state,
place heavy reliance on S.P. Sampath[supra]. To appreciate this, the
Court’s following observation needs consideration in the context of
administrative tribunals: -
C “8. I may also add that if the Administrative Tribunal is to be
an equally effective and efficacious substitution for the High
Court on the basis of which alone the impugned Act can be
sustained, there must be a permanent or if there is not sufficient
work, then a Circuit Bench of the Administrative Tribunal at
D every place where there is a seat of the High Court. I would,
therefore, direct the government to set up a permanent Bench
and if that is not feasible having regard to the Vol. of work,
then at least a circuit Bench of the Administrative Tribunal
wherever there is a seat of the High Court, on or before March
31, 1987. That would be necessary if the provisions of the
E impugned Act are to be sustained. So far as rest of the points
dealt with in the judgment of Ranganath Misra, J. are
concerned, I express my entire agreement with the view taken
by him.”
17. As is seen, Justice Bhagwati made the above observation in
F the case where the Supreme Court was concerned with the Central
Administrative Tribunal [in short, “CAT”] where the volume of litigation
is substantially higher.This is why the direction to establish permanent
benches or circuit benches in every State is predicated on assessing
feasibility by reference to the volume of litigation. Here we must follow
G the principle of proportionality. To underscore the issue, the CAT have
17 Benches and 21 Circuit Benches as opposed to only five Benches of
the NGT. The NGT caters to a limited number of cases unlike the CAT,
where the volume of cases is substantially higher. As per the report 13
tabled in Rajya Sabha by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on

H 13
100_2020_9_11.pdf (rajyasabha.nic.in)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 317
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, the CAT have over 48,000 A
cases pending as on 6th March, 2020.
18. While on this, we may also notice the data available on the
website of the National Green Tribunal14 which reflects the pendency of
cases before the NGT as on 28.02.2022: -
B

C

D
19. As is apparent from the above chart the volume of cases
handled by the NGT and the CAT are not comparable. Looking at the
large volume of service-related cases, it was suggested that the Benches
of the CAT should be located atthe seat of each High Court. But such
logic cannot apply to the NGT, where the zone wise pendency in E
aggregate is only 2237 cases as on 31.3.2022 from the date of its inception.
Therefore, the ratio in S.P. Sampath [supra] does not aid the petitioners
who want the NGT Bench to be relocated from Bhopal to Jabalpur,
where the Madhya Pradesh High Court is located.
20. It is also worthy of attention that the total disposal by all Benches F
of the NGT is 2799 cases during 12 months i.e., March, 2021 to February,
2022. The pendency figure for this period is 2237 only. The rate of disposal
being higher than the pendency, no major backlog issue is seenbefore
the NGT. The strikingly small 107 cases in the NGT’s Bhopal Bench
must also receive our due attention. These data do not provide for a
reasonable basis to entertain a prayer for a NGT Bench at Jabalpur or G
for that matter, an individual NGT Bench in each of those three States.
21. With the low case load, if the NGT Benches are set up in all
28 States and 8 union territories as is suggested by the petitioners, the
14
National Green Tribunal H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A judges and other members in these forums might be left twiddling their
thumbs. Accordingly, no basis is seen to allow one NGT bench in every
State.
22. With the above answer to the first part of the issue B, the
second part becomes superfluous. However, since earnest submission
B is made by the petitioner’s counsel, the issue needs to be decided. The
petitioner put forth that the seat of the NGT must be at Jabalpur where
the principal seat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is located as per
the dicta in S.P. Sampath [supra]. On this aspect, the cited case is
entirely inapplicable as the Bhopal Bench caters to multiple States. In
such a situation, the location of the Bench to the extent possible,should
C
be convenient and accessible to litigants of all three States.Here the
respondents project that Bhopal is centrally located in relation to
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, & Chhattisgarh. Moreover, Bhopal being
the capital of Madhya Pradesh, is well connected and accessible without
much difficulty. This would commend to us that Bhopal is a sound
D locational choice for the NGT which caters to the litigants from three
States.
23. The low case load in the Bhopal Bench, do not match with the
strident plea of the petitioners to locate the Bench at Jabalpur. This is
therefore perceived as an attempt by the petitioners (who are practicing
E lawyers in Jabalpur), to primarily espouse their professional interest. No
other rational basis is seen for the Association’s plea for relocation of
the NGT Bench to Jabalpur from Bhopal. We see no justification to
grant such relief to the petitioners and the second segment of issue B is
accordingly answered against them.
F C. Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from the decisions of the NGT under Section 22
of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution? Whether
an appeal mechanism be provided to the High Courts
from the decisions of the NGT?
G 24. The petitioners have also pleaded that instead of appeal to the
Supreme Court under Section 22 from the orders passed by the NGT, an
appeal mechanism as a matter of right should also be provided before
the concerned High Courts. According to them, appeal to the Supreme
Court is inadequate and unaffordable and therefore inaccessible. On
this aspect it needs to be observed that even when a direct appeal to the
H
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 319
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

Supreme Court is provided by a statute15 against the decision of a A
tribunal16, the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court
remains unextinguished. Moreover, the Appeal under Section 22 of the
NGT Act, is limited to the grounds under Section 100 of the CPC and
the Supreme Court does not function as a regular first appellate Court.
However, under Article 226 or 227, remedies on issues of jurisdiction
B
and also under the principles set out in Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation 17, are available for an
aggrieved party. Subject to discretion being exercised, the affected litigants
can move High Court under Article 226 or 227 and in such cases, a SLP
under Article 136 of the Constitution could also be maintained to the
Supreme Court from the High Court’s verdict. C
25. Also importantly, the right to appeal before the High Court is a
creature of the statute and is not an inherent right. The provision for
appeal to High Court should not therefore be created by issuing a writ of
Mandamus as that would be legislating through judicial order, and would
impinge upon the well-founded concept of separation of powers 18. D
26. The options available to a litigant to either move to the Supreme
Court in a case where a substantial question of law arises or proceed
under Article 226 or 227 must not also be overlooked. If necessary, a
party can also approach this Court by way of an Article 136 petition.
With such choices being available for a party norational justification is E
found for striking down Section 22 of the Act which provides for a direct
appeal to the Supreme Court.
27. A litigating party must also realize that in any event, if the
opposite side approaches the Supreme Court, the litigant on the other
side would have to defend his case before this Court and at that stage F
they cannot be complaining about the distance to Delhi. Thus, the remedy
of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under the NGT Act from the
NGT’s decision cannot be seen as denial of access to justice to the
litigants in the field of environmental law.
28. The issue of direct appeals to the Supreme Court, or G
entertaining petitions under Article 136 to challenge tribunal’s decision,

15
Inter alia,Electricity Act, 2003; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.
16
Inter alia, Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
17
[1948]1KB223.
18
(2017) 7 SCC 221, Para. 36. H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A was considered in the case of R.K. Jain v. Union of India.19 In paragraph
76 of the said judgment, this Court addressed similar submission to the
effect that appeal mechanism should be provided from a tribunal’s
decision, to a division bench of the High Court. The three Judges bench
of this Court, however, expressly refrained from issuing direction for
creation of appeal provisions to the High Courts, which was perceived
B to be an impermissible judicial function. So far, the legislature has not
acted on the recommendation of this Court but then that issue is within
the policy domain of the legislative wing of the State.
29. The implication of the Supreme Court being conceived as the
first appellate forum was considered in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian
C Bank Ltd.20, and in that case the Union Government was directed to do
a study on the effect of direct appeals to the Supreme Court and place
the resultant report before Parliament. But even in Rojer Mathew [supra],
the Supreme Court had no occasion to say that direct appeals to the
Supreme Court is constitutionally impermissible.
D 30. It must also be underscored that the ground raised by the
Petitioners about Supreme Court being inaccessible, would equally apply
to litigants, from all across the country, who have to travel to the Supreme
Court, either by way of Article 136 or Article 32 or any other provision.
Despite the provision under Article 130 of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court has no other bench away from Delhi. In these circumstances by
E pleading inaccessibility, the petitioners are also incidentally questioning,
the location of the Supreme Court at New Delhi. Such a contention on
the face of it would be irrational and not acceptable.
31. It cannot also be overlooked that it is the Supreme Court itself
which had recommended the setting up of environmental court with direct
F appeals to the Supreme Court. This would also support the proposition
on constitutional validity of Section 22 of the NGT Act and that it is not
ultra vires to the Constitution. Consequently, the answer to both aspects
of the question C is answered in favour of the respondents.
D. Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the
G Constitution as suffering from the vice of excessive
delegation?
32. Adverting next to the argument of the petitioners that Section
3 is a case of excessive delegation to the Union Government. It must be
19
(1993) 4 SCC 119.
H 20
(2020) 6 SCC 1, Para.218.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 321
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

borne in mind that the operationalization of the NGT, including the location A
of its Benches, was closely monitored by the Supreme Court. It is further
seen that the Union Government is to specify the ordinary place of sitting
of NGT and its territorial jurisdiction under Section 3 of the NGT Act
being mindful of the demand for environment litigation within a particular
territorial area. The Government is also to be guided by the objects of
B
the Act as also the directions given by the Supreme Court from time to
time. Since, the Government is acting on the issue with the guidance of
this Court, and the Government is obliged to follow the objectives of the
NGT Act, adequate safeguards are seen to guide the government. We
are therefore of the opinion that Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case
of excessive delegation. C
33. The petitioners are seen to have founded their contentions
with considerable reliance on the decision in Madras Bar Association
vs. Union of India and Anr.21 to argue that the NGT is neither accessible
nor it is independent in dealing with environmental cases. In the relied
case, this Court struck down certain provisions of the National Tax D
Tribunal Act, 2005 (for short, ‘NTT Act’) but this must be appreciated
in the context of that case. Moreover, one must not overlook the
distinction between the operation of the NTT Act vis-à-vis the NGT
Act. To be specific, the NTT Act provided that the NTT would ordinarily
sit at New Delhi. The NGT Act however provides for the creation of
benches acrossthe country. Additionally, the NTT was vested with the E
power of adjudicating appeals arising from orders passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal on substantial questions of law. This was a
jurisdiction that the High Courts were exercising under Article 227 in
certain cases, and in that context, it was found that the NTT was indirectly
impinging on the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227. The F
jurisdiction exercised by the NGT is however distinct, and different, and
not comparable. Also glaring was the fact that Union Government had
the power to transfer members of the NTT from one bench to another.
No such provision exists in the NGT Act. Besides, the NTT was
constituted only to determine substantial questions of law and it was
unclear how accountants and other technical members with no legal G
training would deal with the issues raised in such matters. Those troubling
issues do not arise in the NGT Act. One must also be cognizant of the
fact that the Selection Committee under Section 7 of the NTT Act was

21
(2014) 10 SCC 1. H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A dominated by two secretaries of the Government, as opposed to the
Selection Committee for the NGT under the Tribunal Reforms Act which
clearly has judicial dominance.
34. Taking into account all the striking distinctions between the
operation of the NGT Act and the NTT Act, the petitioners’ reliance on
B the NTT judgment, which was rendered in the context of the provisions
of the NTT Act, is found to be wholly misplaced.
35. Addressing next, the argument of the petitioners that the NGT
does not enjoy the same status and independence as the High Courts on
account of the conditions of service and tenure etc., it would be
C appropriate to say that although in paragraph 33 of the written submissions,
the petitioners deal with specific provisions of the Tribunal Reforms
Act, 2021 and the Rules framed, those were neither raised in the petition
nor any relief is claimed in reference to the Tribunal Reforms Act.
Conspicuously, those were also not argued during the oral hearing.
Therefore,we need not delve into those aspects as the same is beyond
D
the scope of the instant proceeding.
36. It must also be borne in mind that the question of validity of
the Tribunal Reforms Act, is pending in this Court in a batch of cases
tagged with WP(C) 1018/2021 Madras Bar Association v. Union of
India. Few similar issues like the present have also been raised in the
E
pending cases where the Union of India has filed counter affidavit
indicating their stand.As those issues are under consideration in the
pending case, the same is left to be decided in those matters.
37. For all the aforesaid reasons, section 3 of the NGT Act is
F found to be intra vires to the Constitution of India. However, it is clarified
that our conclusion is based on the specific facts of this case, and we
make no comments on the issues which are sub-judice in the WP(C)
1018/2021 Madras Bar Association v. Union of India.
Conclusions
G 38. In consequence of the above analysis, our conclusions are,
A. The National Green Tribunal under Section 14 & 22 of the
NGT Actdoes not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction under
Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
H
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR 323
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

B. The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under A
Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of
India.
C. Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive
delegation of power to the Central Government.
D. The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per B
exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every
State.The prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur
is unmerited and is rejected.
39. With the foregoing conclusions, the Writ Petition is found devoid
of merit and is dismissed. The parties to bear their own cost. C

Nidhi Jain Writ Petition dismissed.
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H