Holding

The National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 can initiate suo motu proceedings in environmental matters. The matter arose when the NGT, on its own motion, took cognizance of a news article on solid waste mismanagement at the Deonar dumping ground and ordered compensation against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The Court analyzed the legislative history, the objects and reasons of the Act, and the statutory provisions, particularly Section 14, concluding that the NGT’s jurisdiction is not contingent on an application and that it may act suo motu to prevent or remediate environmental harm. The Court held that a purposive, liberal interpretation of the Act is required to give effect to its environmental objectives and the right to a healthy environment under Article 21. Consequently, the NGT was declared to possess suo motu powers, and the appeals were allowed, with the cases to be heard separately on their merits.

Issues considered

The National Green Tribunal's power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under the NGT Act, 2010.
Whether Section 14 of the NGT Act requires an application to trigger the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The scope of the NGT's authority in relation to environmental justice, precautionary principle, and Article 21 rights.

Legislation cited

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 19, s. 20, s. 25, s. 29, s. 33

Subjects

National Green Tribunalsuo motu jurisdictionenvironmental lawprecautionary principleenvironmental justiceArticle 21statutory interpretationpublic interest litigation

Judgment

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 1

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
v.
ANKITA SINHA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123 of 2018)
OCTOBER 07, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, HRISHIKESH ROY AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: History of legislation –
Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act –
Contours of the jurisdiction of the NGT – Discussed.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Interpretation of –
Purposive interpretation – The provision must be read with the
intention to accentuate them, especially as they concern protections
of rights under Art.21 and also deal with vital environmental policy
and its regulatory aspects.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Salient features –
Discussed.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Role of National Green
Tribunal – The Schedule I of the NGT Act is concerned with
implementation of few environmental related enactments such as
the Water Act, the Air Act, the Environment Act, the Forest
Conservation Act etc – As one looks at these enactments, an
expanded role for the NGT is clearly discernible – The activities of
the NGT are not only geared towards the protection of the
environment but also to ensure that the developments do not cause
serious and irreparable damage to the ecology and the environment
– NGT is primarily concerned with protection of the environment
and also preservation of the natural resources – As the specialized
forum, the NGT would be expected to take preventive action, besides
settling and adjudicating disputes and pass orders on all environment
related questions – NGT is not just an adjudicatory body but has to
perform wider functions in the nature of prevention, remedy and
amelioration.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Power of National Green
Tribunal – In case of environmental events causing damage – The
1
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A NGT is empowered to carry out restitutive exercise for compensating
persons adversely affected by environmental events – The larger
discourse which informs such functions is related to distributive
and corrective justice – Even in the absence of harm inflicted by
human agency, in a situation of a natural calamity, the NGT will be
required to devise a plan for alleviating damage – An inquisitorial
B
function is also available for the NGT, within and without adversarial
significance – Many of these functions do not require an active
“dispute”, but the formulation of decisions.
National Green Tribunal: Suo motu power, exercise of – The
specialized tribunal’s exercise of suo motu powers is somewhat
C distinct from those exercised by the constitutional Courts – The
Supreme Court and High Courts can foray into any issues under
their constitutional mandate but the NGT cannot naturally travel
beyond its environmental domain in reference to the scheduled
enactments – However, as long as the sphere of action is not
D breached, the NGT’s powers must be understood to be of the widest
amplitude.
National Green Tribunal: Uniqueness of NGT vis-a-vis other
Tribunals – The statutory Tribunals are categorized to fall under
four subheads; Administrative Tribunals under Art.323A; Tribunals
under Art.323B; Specialized sector Tribunals and most prominently;
E Tribunals to safeguard rights under Art.21 – The duties of NGT
brings it within the ambit of the fourth category, creating a
compelling proposition for wielding much broader powers as
delineated by the statute.
National Green Tribunal: Sui Generis role of NGT – NGT is a
F specialised forum – The NGT is a Tribunal with sui generis
characteristic, with the special and all-encompassing jurisdiction
to protect the environment – Besides its adjudicatory role as an
appellate authority, it is also conferred with the responsibility to
discharge role of supervisory body and to decide substantial
questions relating to the environment – The necessity of having a
G
specialized body, with the expertise to handle multi-dimensional
environmental issues allows for an all-encompassing framework
for environmental justice – The technical expertise that may be
required to address evolving environmental concerns would
definitely require a flexible institutional mechanism for its effective
H exercise.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 3
SINHA & ORS.

National Green Tribunal: An Authority to take suo motu A
cognizance of matter – NGT is not required to be triggered into
action by an aggrieved or interested party alone – The exercise of
power by the NGT is not circumscribed by receipt of application –
When substantial questions relating to the environment arise and
the issue is civil in nature and those relate to the enactments in
B
Schedule I of the Act, the NGT even in the absence of an application,
can self-ignite action either towards amelioration or towards
prevention of harm.
Environmental law: Precautionary Principle – Application of
– Held: The principle must apply in the widest amplitude to ensure
that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposes but also for C
other ‘decisions’ or ‘orders’ to governmental authorities or polluters,
when they fail to “to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation – Two aspects must therefore be
emphasized i.e. that the NGT is itself required to carry out preventive
and protective measures, as well as hold governmental and private D
authorities accountable for failing to uphold environmental interests
– Thus, a narrow interpretation for NGT’s powers should be
eschewed to adopt one which allows for full flow of the forum’s
power within the environmental domain – Doctrines/Principles.
Environmental law: Environmental justice and equity – When E
substantive justice is elusive for a large segment, disengaging with
substantive rights at the very altar, for a perceived procedural
lacuna, would surely bring in a process, which furthers inequality,
both economic and social – An “equal footing” conception may
not, therefore, be feasible to adequately address the asymmetrical
relationship between the polluters and those affected by their actions F
– Instead, a recognition of the historical experience of marginalized
classes of persons while accessing and effectively using the legal
system, will allow for necessary appreciation of social realities and
balancing the arm of justice.
Directing to post the matters on 25.10.2021 for further G
directions and answering the common legal issue regarding suo
motu jurisdiction of NGT, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The 186th Report of the Law Commission of
India dated 23.9.2003, the Law Commission had made the
pertinent observation espousing the case for the creation of a H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A specialized Court to deal with environmental issues. The
observations in the Report suggest that the Law Commission
was of the opinion that it was not convenient for the High Courts
and the Supreme Court to make local inquiries or receive
evidence. Moreover, the superior courts would not have access
to expert environmental scientists on permanent basis to assist
B
them. Therefore, NGT was conceived as a complimentary
specialized forum to deal with all environmental multi-disciplinary
issues both as original and also as an appellate authority, which
complex issues were hitherto dealt with by the High Courts and
the Supreme Court. The NGT, therefore, was intended to be the
C competent forum for dealing with environmental issues instead
of those being canvassed under the writ jurisdiction of the Courts.
It was explicitly noted that the creation of the NGT would allow
for the Supreme Court and High Court to avoid intervening under
their inherent jurisdiction when an alternative efficacious remedy
would become available before the specialized forum. [Paras 13.2,
D
13.3, 13.4][28-D; 29-D-E, F]
1.2 The power of judicial review was omitted to ensure
avoidance of High Courts’ interference with the Tribunal’s orders
by way of a mid-way scrutiny by the High Court, before the matter
travels to the Supreme Court where NGT’s orders can be
E challenged. The streamlining of the mechanism was to arrest the
growing tide of litigation before High Courts and the Supreme
Court and shift such issues to the domain of the NGT. This is
how the proposed forum was made free from the rules of evidence
and the NGT was permitted to lay down its own procedure to
F entertain oral and documentary evidence, consult experts etc.
The observance of the principles of natural justice was however
mandated. [Paras 13.4 and 13.5][30-B-C; 30-D]
2.1 A reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
NGT Act shows that paragraph 4 thereof refers to the National
G Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995 (NET) which provided for strict
liability and damages arising out of accidents occurring while
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

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 5
SINHA & ORS.

large number of environmental cases are pending in higher A
Courts which involve multi-disciplinary issues and, in such cases,
the Supreme Court had requested the Law Commission of India
to consider the need for constitution of specialized environmental
Courts. Significantly, the Statement of Objects and Reasons also
refers to right to a healthy environment being a part of the right
B
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 and satisfactory judicial procedure”.
[Paras 14.2, 14.3][31-G-H; 32-A-C] C
2.2 The paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons refers to the United Nations Conference on the Human
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 D
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 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 E
therefore conceived to be of the widest amplitude and it is in the
nature of a sui generis forum. [Para 14.4][32-C-E]
2.3 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 F
access to judicial and administrative proceedings, lay out redress
and remedy and to develop national laws regarding 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 G
to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution which was accepted
by various judicial pronouncements in India. The National Green
Tribunal was born in our country with such lofty dreams to deal
with multi-disciplinary issues, relating to the environment. The

H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 of multi-
disciplinary issues arising in environmental cases, were intended
to be addressed through the constitution of the NGT. [Paras 14.5,
14.6][32-E-H; 33-A]
B
3.1 The NGT is intended to address wide ranging societal
concerns. The Statute has to be read in its entirety and each
provision of the Act must be given its due meaning by
comprehending the mischief it intends to remedy. The application
of the Heydon’s Rule could adequately aid here as the Rule directs
C adoption of that construction which “shall suppress the mischief
and advance the remedy”. [Paras 15.1, 15.3] [33-B-C, G]
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar [1955] 2 SCR
603; AIR 1955 SC 661 – followed.

D Francis Bennion Statutory Interpretation described;
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 47 Columbia Law
Review 527 – referred to.
3.2 The laudatory objectives for creation of the NGT would
implore to adopt such an interpretive process which will achieve
E the legislative purpose and will eschew procedural impediment
or so to say incapacity. The precedents of this Court, suggest a
construction which fulfills the object of the Act. The choice for
this Court would be to lean towards the interpretation that would
allow fructification of the legislative intention and is forward
looking. The provisions must be read with the intention to
F accentuate them, especially as they concern protections of rights
under Article 21 and also deal with vital environmental policy
and its regulatory aspects. [Para 15.6][34-G; 35-A-B]
4.1 Section 14 gives original jurisdiction to the NGT to
decide a substantial question relating to environment; Section
G 15 deals with relief, compensation and restitution whereby besides
providing relief to the victims of pollution, the NGT can direct
restitution of property damage and restitution of environment
for such area(s) “as the Tribunal may think fit”. Section 16 gives
appellate jurisdiction to the Tribunal against the orders passed
H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 7
SINHA & ORS.

under various enactments. Section 17 provides for liability to pay A
relief or compensation in certain cases, Section 18 specifies who
can move application/appeal before the Tribunal. It includes,
among others, 18(2)(d) “any person aggrieved including any
representative body / organization” and the locus standi is not
limited only to the aggrieved party. Section 19 provides for
B
procedure and powers of the Tribunal. Section 19(1) significantly
says that the Tribunal shall not be bound by procedures laid down
in the CPC and shall be bound by the Principles of Natural Justice.
Section 19(2) provides that subject to the provisions of the Act,
the Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure.
Section 19(3) mentions that the Tribunal shall not be bound by C
the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. While
discharging functions under Section 19(4), besides summoning,
enforcing attendance, examining persons on oath, requiring
discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on
oath, the NGT also has powers to review its decision, to pass
D
interim orders as well as pass cease and desist orders. Section
20 says that while adjudicating issues, the Tribunal shall apply
the environmental principles, namely, sustainable development
principles, precautionary principles and polluter pays principle.
Under Section 25, the Tribunal can execute its order/decision as
a decree of the Civil Court and for that purpose shall have all the E
powers of a Civil Court. Section 29 bars the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court to entertain all environmental matters covered by
the Tribunal. Under Section 33, the NGT Act has an overriding
effect over other laws. [Para 16.1][35-B-H; 36-A-B]
4.2 While on the statutory provisions, it is seen that the F
Central Government has framed the National Green Tribunal
(Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011. The said Rules make it clear
that the NGT has been given wide discretionary powers to secure
the ends of justice. This power is coupled with the duty to be
exercised for achieving the objectives. The intention
understandably being to preserve and protect the environment G
and the matters connected thereto. By choosing to employ a
phrase of wide import, i.e. secure the ends of justice, the legislature
has nudged towards a liberal interpretation. Securing justice is a

H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A term of wide amplitude and does not simply mean adjudicating
disputes between two rival entities. It also encompasses inter
alia, advancing causes of environmental rights, granting
compensation to victims of calamities, creating schemes for giving
effect to the environmental principles and even hauling up
authorities for inaction, when need be. Moreover, unlike the civil
B
courts which cannot travel beyond the relief sought by the parties,
the NGT is conferred with power of moulding any relief. The
provisions show that the NGT is vested with the widest power to
appropriate relief as may be justified in the facts and circumstances
of the case, even though such relief may not be specifically prayed
C for by the parties. [Paras 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5][36-B-C, D-G]
4.3 Another distinguishing feature of the environmental
forum is on the aspect of locus standi which was made as wide as
is available to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Thus,
any person or organization who may be interested in the subject
D matter is permitted to approach the NGT. The provisions of the
NGT Act and the NGT Rules demonstrate that myriad roles are
to be discharged by the NGT, as was encapsulated in the Law
Commission Report, the Preamble and the Statement of Objects
and Reasons. This is also forthcoming from the international
obligation and commitment by India to implement the decision
E taken at the Stockholm and the Rio De Janeiro Conventions
towards protection of the environmental rights under Article 21
of the Constitution. [Paras 16.6, 16.7][36-G-H, 37-A-B]
5. NON-ADJUDICATORY ROLES OF NGT

F 5.1 As can be seen, the Parliament intended to confer wide
jurisdiction on the NGT so that it can deal with the multitude of
issues relating to the environment which were being dealt with
by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or by
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
Tribunal is also expected to proceed with such matters with the
G understanding that environment and environmental principles are
part of Article 21 of the Constitution.[Para 17.1][37-B-D]
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. UOI (1996) 5 SCC
647 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241 – relied on.

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 9
SINHA & ORS.

5.2 The Schedule I of the NGT Act is concerned with A
implementation of few environmental related enactments such
as the Water Act, the Air Act, the Environment Act, the Forest
Conservation Act etc. As one looks at these enactments, an
expanded role for the NGT is clearly discernible. The activities
of the NGT are not only geared towards the protection of the
B
environment but also to ensure that the developments do not
cause serious and irreparable damage to the ecology and the
environment. These would suggest a broad canvas for the NGT
Act as also its creation. [Para 17.2][37-D-F]
5.3 For the environmental forum, tasked with
implementation of the statutes mentioned in Schedule I of the C
NGT Act, the concept of lis, would obviously be beyond the usual
understanding in civil cases where there is a party (whether private
or government) disturbing the environment and the other one
(could be an individual, a body or the government itself), who has
concern for the protection of environment. Therefore, the NGT D
is primarily concerned with protection of the environment and
also preservation of the natural resources. As the specialized
forum, the NGT would be expected to take preventive action,
besides settling and adjudicating disputes and pass orders on all
environment related questions. The NGT is not just
an adjudicatory body but has to perform wider functions in the E
nature of prevention, remedy and amelioration. [Paras 17.3,
17.4][37-F-G; 38-A]
5.4 The NGT is empowered to carry out restitutive exercise
for compensating persons adversely affected by environmental
events. The larger discourse which informs such functions is F
related to distributive and corrective justice. Even in the absence
of harm inflicted by human agency, in a situation of a natural
calamity, the Tribunal will be required to devise a plan for
alleviating damage. An inquisitorial function is also available for
the Tribunal, within and without adversarial significance. G
Importantly, many of these functions do not require an active
“dispute”, but the formulation of decisions. [Para 18][38-D-F]
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan vs. Union
of India (2012) 8 SCC 326 : [2012] 12 SCR 947
– relied on. H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 6. EXERCISE OF SUO MOTU POWER BY NGT
The specialized tribunal’s exercise of suo motu powers is
somewhat distinct from those exercised by the constitutional
Courts. The Supreme Court and High Courts can foray into any
issues under their constitutional mandate but the NGT cannot
B naturally travel beyond its environmental domain in reference to
the scheduled enactments. However, as long as the sphere of
action is not breached, the NGT’s powers must be understood to
be of the widest amplitude. From the very inception, the role of
the NGT was not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis but to
perform equally vital roles which are preventative, ameliorative
C or remedial in nature. The functional capacity of the NGT was
intended to leverage wide powers to do full justice in its
environmental mandate. [Paras 20, 21.6][39-F-H; 41-F-G]
Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation (2019)
18 SCC 494; Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut
D Kashinath (2011) 9 SCC 541 : [2011] 10 SCR 513;
Rajeev Suri v. DDA 2021 SCC Online SC 7; Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu
(Retd.) and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 718 : [1999] 1 SCR
235 – relied on.
E 7. UNIQUENESS OF NGT VIS-A-VIS OTHER TRIBUNALS
While there are many tribunals functioning within their
specified domains, variances do exist in the manner in which they
are designed to function. The statutory Tribunals were categorized
to fall under four subheads; Administrative Tribunals under Article
F 323A; Tribunals under Article 323B; Specialized sector Tribunals
and most prominently; Tribunals to safeguard rights under Article
21. The duties of NGT brings it within the ambit of the fourth
category, creating a compelling proposition for wielding much
broader powers as delineated by the statute. The ideal was to
G create a fairly proactive and responsive Institution which could
step into varying roles, as the situation demanded. During the
course of its functioning, the NGT has been recognized as one of
the most progressive Tribunals in the world. This jurisprudential
leap has allowed our country to enter a rather exclusive group of

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 11
SINHA & ORS.

nations which have set up such institutions with broad powers. A
[Para 22.1, 22.2, 22.3][41-G-H; 42-A-C; 43-B-C]
State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union (2019)
8 SCC 177 : [2019] 8 SCR 297 – relied on.
8. THE SUI GENERIS ROLE OF NGT
B
8.1 The NGT was conceived as a specialized forum not only
as a like substitute for a civil court but more importantly to take
over all the environment related cases from the High Courts and
the Supreme Court. Many of those cases transferred to the NGT,
emanated in the superior courts and it would be appropriate thus
to assume that similar power to initiate suo motu proceedings C
should also be available with the NGT. [Para 24.4][44-G-H;
45-A]
Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (1999) 2 SCC 131 :
[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; DG NHAI v. Aam Aadmi
Lokmanch 2020 SCC Online SC 572 – relied on. D
8.2 The NGT is a Tribunal with sui generis characteristic,
with the special and all-encompassing jurisdiction to protect the
environment. Besides its adjudicatory role as an appellate
authority, it is also conferred with the responsibility to discharge
role of supervisory body and to decide substantial questions E
relating to the environment. The necessity of having a specialized
body, with the expertise to handle multi-dimensional
environmental issues allows for an all-encompassing framework
for environmental justice. The technical expertise that may be
required to address evolving environmental concerns would F
definitely require a flexible institutional mechanism for its effective
exercise. [Para 24.5][45-B-C]
9. AUTHORITY WITH SELF-ACTIVATING CAPABILITY
9.1 Given the multifarious role envisaged for the NGT and
the purposive interpretation which ought to be given to the G
statutory provisions, it would be fitting to regard the NGT as
having the mechanism to set in motion all necessary functions
within its domain and this, should necessarily clothe it with the
authority to take suo motu cognizance of matters, for effective
discharge of its mandate. Section 14(1) of the NGT Act deals
H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A with jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional provision conspicuously
omits to specify that an application is necessary to trigger the
NGT into action. In situations where the three prerequisites of
Section 14(1) i.e., Civil cases; involvement of substantial question
of environment; and implementation of the enactments in
Schedule I are satisfied, the jurisdiction and power of the NGT
B
gets activated. On these material aspects, the NGT is not required
to be triggered into action by an aggrieved or interested party
alone. It would therefore be logical to conclude that the exercise
of power by the NGT is not circumscribed by receipt of application.
When substantial questions relating to the environment arise and
C the issue is civil in nature and those relate to the enactments in
Schedule I of the Act, the NGT even in the absence of an
application, can self-ignite action either towards amelioration or
towards prevention of harm. [Paras 25.1, 25.3][45-D-E; 46-B-D]
9.2 Section 14(1) exists as a standalone feature, not
D constricted by the operational mechanism of the subsequent
subsections. The sub Section (2) of Section 14 functions as a
corollary and comes into play when a dispute arises from the
questions referred to in Section 14(1). Likewise sub Section (3)
thereafter, refers to the period of limitation concerning
applications, when they are addressed to the NGT. Where
E adjudication is involved, the adjudicatory function under Section
14(2) comes into play. When it is a case warranting NGT’s
intervention, or may be a situation calling for decisions to meet
certain exigencies, the functions under Section 14(1) can be
undertaken and those may not involve any formal application or
F an adjudicatory process. However, the later provisions may not
work in similar fashion. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure
unrestricted discharge of the responsibilities under Section 14(1)
and that wide arena of NGT’s functioning. [Para 25.4][46-D-G]
9.3 The other pertinent provisions relating to, inter-alia,
G jurisdiction, interim orders, payment of compensation and review,
do not require any application or appeal, for the NGT to pass
necessary orders. These crucial powers are expected to be
exercised by the NGT, would logically suggest that the action/
orders of the NGT need not always involve any application or

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 13
SINHA & ORS.

appeal. To hold otherwise would not only reduce its effectiveness A
but would also defeat the legal mandate given to the forum. It
may also be relevant to bear in mind that while dealing with
contested cases, the NGT is required to pass “award” and
“order” and the statute repeatedly uses the word “decision”.
Therefore, it is appropriate to correlate the word “decision” to
B
the NGT, in its non-adversarial or inquisitorial role, as was
suggested by the Law Commission and recognized in DG, NHAI.
[Paras 25.5, 25.6][46-G-H; 47-B]
9.4 The duty to safeguard Article 21 rights cannot stand on
a narrow compass of interpretation. Procedural provisions must
be allowed to fall in step with the substantive rights that are C
invoked in the environmental domain, in larger public interest.
The specialized forum is bestowed with the responsibility to
ensure protection of the environment. To be effective in its
domain, we need to ascribe to the NGT a public responsibility to
initiate action when required, to protect the substantive right of D
a clean environment and the procedural law should not be
obstructive in its application. [Para 25.7][47-C-D]
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shamlal Murari & Anr. (1976)
1 SCC 719 : [1976] 2 SCR 82 – relied on.
9.5 While discussing the NGT’s power and responsibility, E
it is essential to keep in mind the Principle 10 of the Rio
Declaration which speaks of three fundamental rights i.e., access
to information, access to public participation and access to justice,
as key pillars of environmental governance. Access to justice,
may however be curtailed by illiteracy, lack of mobility, poverty F
or even the lack of technical knowledge on the part of citizens.
Another deterrence is the likelihood of polluters/violators being
powerful entities with adequate wherewithal to skirt regulations.
Thus, it may not always be feasible for individuals to knock on
the doors of the Tribunal, and NGT in such exigencies must not
be made dysfunctional. [Para 25.8][47-F-H] G
10. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
10.1 The origin of the Precautionary Principle itself is rooted
as an institutional obligation, by holding them primarily
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A responsible for the environmental concerns and remedies. Section
20 of the NGT Act which includes the term “decision”, in addition
to “order” and “award”, also require the Tribunal to apply the
‘Precautionary Principle’ . [Paras 26.2 and 26.3][48-D-E]
10.2 The principle must apply in the widest amplitude to
B ensure that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposes
but also for other ‘decisions’ or ‘orders’ to governmental authorities
or polluters, when they fail to “to anticipate, prevent and attack
the causes of environmental degradation.” . Two aspects must
therefore be emphasized i.e. that the Tribunal is itself required
to carry out preventive and protective measures, as well as hold
C governmental and private authorities accountable for failing to
uphold environmental interests. Thus, a narrow interpretation
for NGT’s powers should be eschewed to adopt one which allows
for full flow of the forum’s power within the environmental domain.
[Para 26.4][48-F-G; 49-A-B]
D 10.3 It is an important legal onus on the Tribunal to act
with promptitude to deal with environmental exigencies. The
responsibility is not just to resolve legal ambiguities but to arrive
at a reasoned and fair result for environmental problems which
are adversarial as well as non-adversarial. [Para 26.5][49-B-C]
E 11. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ENVIROMENTAL
EQUITY
11.1 The conceptual frameworks of environmental justice
and equity should merit consideration vis-à-vis the NGT’s domain
and how its functioning and decisions can have wide implications
F in socio-economic dimensions of people at large. The concept of
environmental justice is a trifecta of distributive justice,
procedural justice and justice as recognition. Environmental
equity as a developing concept has focused on the
disproportionate implications of environmental harms on the
G economically or socially marginalized groups. The concerns of
human rights and environmental degradation overlap under this
umbrella term, to highlight the human element, apart from
economic and environmental ramifications. Environmental equity
thus stands to ensure a balanced distribution of environmental

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 15
SINHA & ORS.

risks as well as protections, including application of sustainable A
development principles. [Para 27.1][49-E-G]
11.2 When substantive justice is elusive for a large
segment, disengaging with substantive rights at the very altar,
for a perceived procedural lacuna, would surely bring in a process,
which furthers inequality, both economic and social. An “equal B
footing” conception may not therefore be feasible to adequately
address the asymmetrical relationship between the polluters and
those affected by their actions. Instead, a recognition of the
historical experience of marginalized classes of persons while
accessing and effectively using the legal system, will allow for
necessary appreciation of social realities and balancing the arm C
of justice. [Para 27.3][50-F-G]
12. ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA
12.1 By expanding the scope of Articles 21, 32, 48A,
51A(g), this Court has guaranteed the right to a pollution free D
environment for a holistic existence. Most crucially, the
expansion of Right to Life under Article 21 by this Court has
become a touchstone to determine many environmental concerns.
Adopting international principles and moulding them to Indian
realities also became a focal concern, given the lacunae in regimes
which may be exploited by those who may not have much concern E
for environmental degradation. Creation of the ‘Absolute Liability
Principle’ by this Court is a well recognized testament for this. It
would thus be appropriate to state that much of the principles,
institutions and mechanisms in this sphere have been created,
on account of this Court’s initiative. [Paras 28.2, 28.3][52-A-B, F
C-D]
12.2 The Supreme Court adopted the role of an “amicus
environment” by threading together human rights and
environmental concerns, resultingly developing a sui generis
environmental discourse. There were both procedural and G
substantive innovations made, by entertaining PIL petitions,
seeking remedies, including guidelines and directions in the
absence of legislation. Many of the landmark cases which hold
the fort to this day, were in recognition of the ‘at risk’ nature of
some populations. The creation of the NGT itself was due in large
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A part to the need expressed by this Court for such a forum.[Para
28.4][52-F; 53-A-B]
12.3 Environmental jurisprudence in India has been
intrinsic to advancing a democratic, welfare oriented legal regime.
Issues affecting the ecology and the environment must have a
B broad perspective and should have a society centric approach.
Furthermore, the very nature of ecological and environmental
issues has the propensity for rapid deterioration. Many such
sensitive matters, stood transferred to the NGT, with the aim
that those would be dealt with expediently with the required
technical expertise and legal sophistication. The proactiveness
C of the superior Court was surely expected to be seen in the
Tribunal’s approach. [Para 28.6][53-E-F]
H.P. Bus Stand Management & Development Authority
v. Central Empowered Committee (2021) 4 SCC 309
– relied on.
D
12.4 The NGT is the institutionalization of the developments
made by this Court in the field of environment law. The
progressive steps have allowed it to inherit a very broad
conception of environmental concerns. Its functions therefore,
must not be viewed in a cribbed manner, which detracts from the
E progress already made in the Indian environmental jurisprudence.
[Para 28.8][55-A-B]
13.1 The NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much
leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The
Parliament’s intention is clearly discernible to create a
F multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for
environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of
environmental justice and environmental equity must be explicitly
acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT’s fabric. The NGT
must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum,
G and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the
area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010
must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court.
[Para 30][55-C-E]

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 17
SINHA & ORS.

13.2 The environmental impacts on climate change are A
gaining increasing visibility in the shape of uncertain rains,
species extinction, loss of natural habitat and so on. These also
have the propensity to diminish fresh water resources, reduce
agricultural yields and impact public health, particularly in the
cities. The flooding and erosion in riverine and coastal areas are
B
matters of serious concern. Governmental assessment of India’s
increased vulnerability to such changes in the near future also
exists with many countries declaring climate emergencies and
many others being urged to follow suit. Therefore, the nature of
ecological imbalance which is visible even in our own times may
cascade, and the unforeseen injustice of the future may not be C
capable of being handled within the frontiers set forth today. The
long term and very often irreparable environmental damage which
are expected to be arrested by the NGT, urge this Court to advert
to what is termed as the ‘Seventh Generation’ sustainability
principle,or the ‘Great Law of the Iroquois’ (as it originates from
D
the Iroquois Tribe) which requires all decision making to
withstand for the benefit of seven generations down the line.
[Paras 31, 32][55-E-G; 56-A-B]
13.3 It is vital for the well being of the nation and its people,
to have a flexible mechanism to address all issues pertaining to
environmental damage and resultant climate change so that a E
better environmental legacy is left behind, for our children, and
the generations thereafter. In circumstances, where adverse
environmental impact may be egregious, but the community
affected is unable to effectively get the machinery into action, a
forum created specifically to address such concerns should surely F
be expected to move with expediency, and of its own accord. The
potentiality of disproportionate harm imposes a higher obligation
on authorities to preserve rights which may be waylaid due to
such restrictive access. The “global impacts of climate change
will fall disproportionately on minority and low-income
communities”. Thus, an affirmative role, beyond mere adjudication G
at the instance of applicant, is certainly required for serving the
ends of environmental justice, as the statute itself requires of the
NGT. [Paras 33, 34][56-B-E]

H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 13.4 The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can
hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on
its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for
collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns. Such
a society centric approach must be allowed to work within the
established safety valves of the principles of natural justice and
B
appeal to the Supreme Court. The hands-off mode for the NGT,
when faced with exigencies requiring immediate and effective
response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its
responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice.
It would be procedural hairsplitting to argue (as it has been) that
C the NGT could act upon a letter being written to it, but learning
about an environmental exigency through any other means cannot
trigger the NGT into action. To endorse such an approach would
surely be rendering the forum procedurally shackled or
incapacitated. [Paras 35, 36][56-F-H; 57-A-B]
D 13.5 When the Registry of the NGT does indeed receive a
communication or letter, including matters published in media, it
may cause to initiate suo motu action by inviting attention of NGT
to such matters in the form of office report. Such circumstances
would however require a notice to be given to the sender of the
communication or author of the news item, as the case may be, to
E assist the NGT in the course of hearing and to substantiate the
factual matters. It must also be said that the exercise of suo motu
jurisdiction does not mean eschewing with the principles of
natural justice and fair play. In other words, the party likely to be
affected should be afforded due opportunity to present their side,
F before suffering adverse orders. Institutions which are often
addressing urgent concerns gain little from procedural nitpicking,
which are unwarranted in the face of both the statutory spirit and
the evolving nature of environmental degradation. Not merely
should a procedure exist but it must be meaningfully effective to
address such concerns. The role of such an institution cannot be
G mechanical or ornamental. An interpretation must be adopted
which sustains the spirit of public good and not render the
environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective.
[Paras 37, 39][57-B-D, E-G]

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 19
SINHA & ORS.

Standard Chartered v. Dharminder Bhohi (2013) 15 A
SCC 341 : [2013] 9 SCR 410; Transcore v. Union of
India (2008) 1 SCC 125 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 785;
Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors.
(2018) 11 SCC 734 : [2017] 12 SCR 956; Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.
B
(2019) 19 SCC 479; Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio
Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62 : [2013] 12 SCR
674; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia
(2008) 3 SCC 279 : [2007] 13 SCR 598; M.C. Mehta
v. UOI (1997) 2 SCC 353 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 973;
S. Jagannathan v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87 : C
[1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 848; Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board v. C Kenchappa and Ors. (2006) 6
SCC 371 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 362; Rural Litigation
And Entitlement Kendra & Ors v. State Of U. P. & Ors
AIR 1985 SC 652 : [1985] 3 SCR 169; Charan Lal
D
Sahu v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613 : [1989] 2
Suppl. SCR 597; Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana
(1995) 2 SCC 577 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 78; Subhash
Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 74; M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 : [1987] 1 SCR
819; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 176 E
: [1986] 1 SCR 312; Indian Council for Environmental-
Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212 :
[1996] 2 SCR 503; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V.
Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 : [1999] 1 SCR 235; A.P.
Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC
F
62 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 249 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 9 SCR 410 referred to para 10.1
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 785 referred to para 10.2
G
[2011] 10 SCR 513 relied on para 10.3
[2017] 12 SCR 956 referred to para 11.1
(2019) 19 SCC 479 referred to para 12.1
[1955] 2 SCR 603 referred to para 8
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A [2013] 12 SCR 674 referred to para 15.6
[2007] 13 SCR 598 referred to para 15.6
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241 relied on para 17.1
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 973 referred to para 17.1
B [2012] 12 SCR 947 relied on para 19.1
(2019) 18 SCC 494 relied on para 21.1
[1999] 1 SCR 235 relied on para 21.6
[2019] 8 SCR 297 relied on para 22.2
C
[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 relied on para 24.1
[1976] 2 SCR 82 relied on para 25.7
[1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 848 referred to para 26.4
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 362 referred to para 26.4
D
[1985] 3 SCR 169 referred to para 28.1
[1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 597 referred to para 28.1
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 78 referred to para 28.1
(1991) 1 SCC 74 referred to para 28.2
E
[1987] 1 SCR 819 referred to para 28.3
[1986] 1 SCR 312 referred to para 28.4
[1996] 2 SCR 503 referred to para 28.4

F [1999] 1 SCR 235 referred to para 28.4
[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 249 referred to para 28.4
(2021) 4 SCC 309 relied on para 28.7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.12122-
12123 of 2018.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2018 and 05.12.2018
of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.
No.510 of 2018 and Review Application No.49 of 2018 in O.A. No.510
of 2018.

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 21
SINHA & ORS.

With A
Civil Appeal Nos. 86 and 5902 of 2019 and Civil Appeal
Nos. 6273, 6274, 6275, 6276, 6277-6278, 6279, 6280-6281, 2897, 6282,
6283, 6262, 6284, 6285 and 6286 of 2021.
Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, Anand Grover, Nidhesh Gupta, Sanjay
Parikh, Gopal Shankarnarayanan, V. Giri, Mukul Rohatgi, Krishnan B
Venugopal, Sajan Poovyya, Jaideep Gupta, Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni,
Dhruv Mehta, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advs., Ms. Astha Sharma,
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Vanshdeep Dalmia, Harish
Vasudevan, Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Vriti Gujral,
Ms. Pallavi Singh, Abhimanue Shrestha, Satwik Parikh, Divyansh C
Khurana, James P. Thomas, K. K. Vinosh, Apzal Ansari, Abhilash M.
R., Sayooj Mohandas M., Amith Krishnan, M. Thangathurai, Sandeep
Singh, Mahesh Agarwal, Rohan Talwar, Shivendra Singh, E. C. Agrawala,
Anand Kumar Shrivastava, Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Sharan
Balakrishnan, Pratibhanu Singh, Arpit Shukla, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Bhuvan D
Mishra, C. K. Sasi, Abdullah Naseeh, Ms. Meena K. P., Ms. Anindita
Mitra, Ashish Wad, Ms. Tamali Wad, Ms. Aruna Savla, Pimple Sharad,
Ms. Sukriti Jaggi, Ajeyo Sharma, Sidharth Mahajan, Santosh Rebello
Salvador, Ms. Arzu Paul, Adiraj Bali, Ms. Deepti Arya for M/s J S Wad
and Co., Jobi Jose Kondody, Alex M Scaria, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Biju E
P. Raman, Ms. Saritha Thomas, S. Thananjayan, Ms. Promila,
K. Sakthivel, Ms. Aaiyna Verma, Ms. Jaswanti, Darpan K. M.,
Ms. Amrita Sharma, Prakash S. Rao, Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Ms. Rashi
Bansal, Bijo Mathew Joy, Manu Krishnan G., Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru,
E. M. S. Anam, M. S. Vishnu Sankar, A. Karthik, Enoch David Simon
Joel, Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Saaketh Kasibhatla, Arsh Khan, Parsant Kumar, F
Md. Shahid Anwar, Amit Singh, Intakhab Alam, Mohammed Naseem
Mughal, Satish Solanki, Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Amith S. J.,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Tahir Ashraf
Siddiqui, Jogy Scaria, Ms. Beena Victor, Ms. M. Prirya, Ravi Lomod,
K. Parameshwar, Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Prasad Hegde, Zulfiker Ali P. G
S., Augustine Peter, Ms. Lakshmi Sree P., Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Dr. Joseph
Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Suvidutt M. A.,
Mrs. Anu B., Ms. Vijayalakshmi Raju, Mrs. Dhanya C., Advs. for the
Appearing Parties.

H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
“Estragon: Let’s go.
Vladimir: We can’t.
B Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.” 1
1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The consideration to be made in these matters is whether the
National Green Tribunal (for short “the NGT”) has the power to exercise
C Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, “the NGT Act 2010”).
3. In the lead case in this group, i.e. the Civil Appeal No. 86 of
2019, the NGT noticed an article titled “Garbage Gangs of Deonar:
The Kingpins and Their Multi-Crore Trade” in the online news portal,
D The Quint. The article spoke of how mismanagement of solid waste
had an adverse impact on the environment, public health and lives of
individuals living in the vicinity of the dumping ground in Mumbai city.
4. The NGT took suo motu cognizance of the above article vide
order dated 07.08.2018 and directed that the article writer Ankita Sinha
E be the applicant in the case OA No. 510 of 2018, registered at the NGT’s
instance. Thereafter, steps were taken for inspection of the Deonar
Dumping site by the representative of the Central Pollution Control Board,
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, the District Collector of the area
and also the representative of the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (for short “the MCGM”). Pursuant to the Report of the
F inspecting team which highlighted that the landfill site failed to comply
with the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, the
NGT vide order dated 30.10.2018 noted that ‘damage to the environment
and public health is self-evident’ and ordered MCGM to pay
compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crores.
G 5. This Court while entertaining the Civil Appeal No. 86/2019 of
MCGM, ordered stay on the operation of the order passed by the NGT
and thereafter arranged for analogous consideration of the related cases
where the common threshold jurisdictional issue arises on whether the
NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction.
1
H Beckett, S. (1954). Waiting for Godot: Tragicomedy in 2 Acts.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 23
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

6. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, A
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal,
Mr. V. Giri, Mr. Sajan Poovayya and Mr. Sidhartha Dave, learned Senior
Counsel together with Mr. E.M.S Anam, Ms. Amrita Sharma, Mr. S.
Thananjayan have taken a common stand. They have argued that the
NGT is a Tribunal and a creature of statute and as such, it cannot act on
B
its own motion or exercise the power of judicial review or act suo motu,
in discharge of its function. Being a creature of the statute, the forum
cannot assume inherent powers as under Article 32 and Article 226 and
its domain is circumscribed by the limitations so imposed. The learned
counsel also argue that the NGT has an adjudicatory role to decide
disputes which necessarily mean involvement of two or more contesting C
parties. Therefore, the NGT by acting suo motu cannot transpose itself
to the shoes of one such party. The absence of general power of judicial
review with the NGT (which is available with superior courts) is
highlighted to keep away suo motu power from the NGT. Various
judgments relating to the Tribunal’s power and role are cited by the
D
counsel and those would be discussed in later part of this order.
7. Projecting the contrary view, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the aggrieved party in SLP(C) No. 6732/
2021, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel for the Intervener in
C.A. No.86/2019 and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Impleader I.A. No.71482/2021 in the SLP(C) E
No. 6732/2021, by referring to the special role envisaged for the NGT
and the history of its incorporation, make equally powerful submission in
support of exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, by the NGT.
8. Mr. Anand Grover, the learned Senior Counsel was appointed
as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and he was heard at length. F
The counsel acknowledges the NGT’s role and position under the Act
and its wide jurisdiction over environmental matters but Mr. Grover is of
the view that the NGT is incapable of triggering action on its own. In
other words, the NGT cannot act suo motu without someone moving
the Forum as otherwise the forum then would be perceived to be judging G
its own cause. Since suo motu power is not conferred under the NGT
Act, the specialized tribunal has to be moved by an outside party. But
the format of the application is not important and even a letteraddressed
by an interested party, will clothe the NGT with power to take action is
the concessional submission of Mr. Grover.
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 9. Representing the Central Government, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that Suo Motu
power is not exercisable by the NGT since the same has not been
conferred on the forum under the NGT Act, unlike the situation in the
now repealed National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as the “NET Act”). The counsel refers to the provisions of
B
the NGT Act and submits that the concept of locus standi was expanded
for NGT’s intervention under Section 18(2)(e) but the tribunal is not
vested with suo motu power to take action on its own unlike the High
Courts and the Supreme Court. The learned ASG, however, submits that
even on receipt of a letter, the NGT can commence action on
C environmental matters. Thus, on exercise of epistolary jurisdiction by
the NGT, the ASG is on the same page as the amicus curiae but as
earlier noted both counsel argue for keeping away the suo motu
powerfrom the NGT.
10.1 Having summarized the positions taken by the respective
Counsel, we may now refer to the specific grounds of challenge to keep
D
away suo motu power from the NGT. The concerned counsel project
that NGT is a creature of the statute and just like other such statutory
tribunals, the NGT is also bound within statutory confines. They have
relied upon Standard Chartered Vs. Dharminder Bhohi2 wherein,
provisions of the Recovery of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial
E Institutions Act, 1993 were analysed to note the limitations of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. From the analysis of Justice
Dipak Misra (as his Lordship then was) for the Division Bench, it can be
inferred that the Tribunal was given power under the statute to pass
such other orders and give such directions to give effect to its orders or
to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice but in
F
discharge of its functions the Tribunal was required to confine itself to
within the statutory parameters. Thus, Section 19(25) conferred limited
powers and the submission thus is that the Tribunal does not have any
inherent powers.
10.2 Similarly, Justice S.H. Kapadia (as his Lordship then was) in
G Transcore Vs. Union of India3, opined on behalf of a Division Bench
that,
“ 67. ...The DRT is a tribunal, it is the creature of the statute, it
has no inherent power which exists in the civil courts.”
2
(2013) 15 SCC 341
H 3
(2008) 1 SCC 125
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 25
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

10.3 The counsel also projects that in the context of Consumer A
Forums, Justice Dalveer Bhandari (as his Lordship then was) speaking
for a three judge bench in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut
Kashinath4, observed as under : -
“34. On a careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is
abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the statute B
and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute.
The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been
given any power to set aside ex parte orders and the power of
review and the powers which have not been expressly given by
the statute cannot be exercised.”
C
11.1 The second limb of contention is that the Act is applicable to
‘disputes’ as, necessarily referring to a lis between two parties. The
counsel has relied upon Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari
& Ors. 5 wherein the term ‘substantial question relating to
environment’ was interpreted in an attenuated fashion to mean a question
arising as part of a dispute. The submission therefore is that a dispute D
must necessitate a claimant or an applicant. Further, this dispute must
also be capable of settlement by the NGT. In the cited case the proposition
is articulated in the following fashion,
“19. On a combined reading of all these provisions, it is clear to
us that there must be a substantial question relating to the E
environment and that question must arise in a dispute — it should
not be an academic question. There must also be a claimant raising
that dispute which dispute is capable of settlement by the NGT by
the grant of some relief which could be in the nature of
compensation or restitution of property damaged or restitution of
the environment and any other incidental or ancillary relief F
connected therewith.
20. ...In Prabhakar v. Deptt. of Sericulture [Prabhakar v. Deptt.
of Sericulture, (2015) 15 SCC 1 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 149] the
following definition of “dispute” was noted in paras 34 and 35 of
the Report: (SCC p. 21) G
“34. To understand the meaning of the word “dispute”, it would
be appropriate to start with the grammatical or dictionary meaning
of the term:
4
(2011) 9 SCC 541
5
(2018) 11 SCC 734 H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A ‘ “Dispute”.—to argue about, to contend for, to oppose by
argument, to call in question — to argue or debate (with, about or
over) — a contest with words; an argument; a debate; a quarrel;’
35. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., p. 424 defines “dispute”
as under:
B ‘Dispute.—A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights;
an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by
contrary claims or allegations on the other. The subject of litigation;
the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which issue is
joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses
examined.”
C
11.2 The amicus curiae has also addressed this issue, by defining
a dispute as necessitating an assertion and a denial. By this reasoning, it
is submitted that function of Section 14 of the NGT Act is available only
to adjudicate upon disputes, as in an adversarial system but not for any
other ameliorative, restorative or preventative functions.
D 12.1 Thirdly, the lack of general power of Judicial Review has
been argued to show legislative intent to curb suo motu powers. Counsel
have stated that the NGT, as a Tribunal with prescribed authority under
a statute, does not have any general power of judicial review. Thus, it is
not within the category of Writ Courts as under Article 226 and Article
E 32 of the Constitution of India. In the relied upon judgment Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.,6 Justice R.F.
Nariman speaking about the NGT for a Division Bench of this Court has
observed the following,
“41. ...Suffice it to say that the NGT is not a tribunal set up either
under Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, but is a
F
statutory tribunal set up under the NGT Act. That such a tribunal
does not exercise the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme
Court is clear from a reading of Section 29 of the NGT
Act…………
43. ...In the present case, it is clear that Section 16 of the NGT
G Act is cast in terms that are similar to Section 14(b) of the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, in that appeals are against
the orders, decisions, directions, or determinations made under
the various Acts mentioned in Section 16. It is clear, therefore,
that under the NGT Act, the Tribunal exercising appellate
H 6
(2019) 19 SCC 479
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 27
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

jurisdiction cannot strike down rules or regulations made under A
this Act. Therefore, it would be fallacious to state that the Tribunal
has powers of judicial review akin to that of a High Court
exercising constitutional powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We must never forget the distinction between
a superior court of record and courts of limited jurisdiction that
B
was, in the felicitous language of Gajendragadkar, C.J., in Powers,
Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, In re [Powers,
Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, In re, (1965) 1
SCR 413 : AIR 1965 SC 745] , made in the following words:
(SCR p. 499: AIR p. 789, para 138)
“138. We ought to make it clear that we are dealing with the C
question of jurisdiction and are not concerned with the propriety
or reasonableness of the exercise of such jurisdiction. Besides, in
the case of a superior court of record, it is for the court to consider
whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a
court of limited jurisdiction, the superior court is entitled to determine D
for itself questions about its own jurisdiction.
‘Prima facie’, says Halsbury, ‘no matter is deemed to be beyond
the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to
be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court
unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that E
the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular
court [Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 9, p. 349] ’.
For this reason also, we are of the view that the State Government
order made under Section 18 of the Water Act, not being the
subject-matter of any appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, F
cannot be “judicially reviewed” by the NGT. Following the judgment
in BSNL [BSNL v. TRAI, (2014) 3 SCC 222] , we are of the view
that the NGT has no general power of judicial review akin to that
vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India possessed by
the High Courts of this country. Shri Sundaram’s strong reliance
on the NGT judgment dated 17-7-2014 in Wilfred J. v. Ministry G
of Environment & Forests [Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment
& Forests, 2014 SCC OnLine NGT 6860] must also be rejected
as this NGT judgment does not state the law on this aspect
correctly. This contention is also without merit, and therefore,
rejected.”
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 12.2 The argument has been that the superior Courts exercising
discretionary powers under Article 32 and Article 226, to safeguard
fundamental rights, can venture into judicial review. But such a power
not being expressly conferred on the NGT would suggest the limited
nature of the Forum’s powers, which would exclude any suo motu
exercise.
B
I. THE BACKDROP OF THE NATIONAL GREEN
TRIBUNAL
13.1 In order to understand the contours of jurisdiction of the
NGT, we have thought it necessary to refer to the history of the legislation
C and also the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
NGT Act. The parliamentary intent which shaped the creation of the
NGT and the broad issues that they sought to address through the
specialized institution should now be brought to the fore.
13.2 The precursor to the NGT Act was the 186th Report of the
D Law Commission of India dated 23.9.2003 where the Law Commission
had made the following pertinent observation espousing the case for the
creation of a specialized Court to deal with environmental issues:-
“It is true that the High Court and Supreme Court have been
taking up these and other complex environmental issues and
E deciding them. But, though they are judicial bodies, they do not
have an independent statutory panel of environmental scientists
to help and advise them on a permanent basis. They are prone to
apply principles like the Wednesbury Principle and refuse to go
into the merits. They do not also make spot inspections or receive
oral evidence to see for themselves the facts as they exist on
F ground. On the other hand, if Environmental Courts are established
in each State, these Courts can make spot inspections and receive
oral evidence. They can receive independent advice on scientific
matters by a panel of scientists.
These Environmental Courts need not be Courts of exclusive
G jurisdiction. However, the High Courts, even if they are
approached under Art. 226 either in individual cases or in PIL
cases, where orders of environmental authorities could be
questioned, may refuse to intervene on the ground that there is an
effective alternative remedy before the specialist Environmental
Court. As of now, when we have consumer Courts at the District
H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 29
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

and State level, the High Courts have consistently refused to A
entertain writ petitions under Art. 226 because parties have a
remedy before the fora established under the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. We have also the example of special environmental
courts in Australia, New Zealand and in some other countries and
these are manned by Judges and expert commissioners. The Royal
B
Commission in UK is also of the view that if environmental courts
are established, the High Courts may refuse to entertain
applications for judicial review on the ground that there is an
effective alternative remedy before these Courts.
It is for the above reasons we are proposing the establishment of
separate environmental courts in each State. In Chapter IX, we C
propose to give the details of the constitution, power and jurisdiction
of these Courts.”
13.3 The above would suggest that the Law Commission was of
the opinion that it is not convenient for the High Courts and the Supreme
Court to make local inquiries or receive evidence. Moreover, the superior D
courts will not have access to expert environmental scientists on
permanent basis to assist them. Therefore, NGT was conceived as a
complimentary specialized forum to deal with all environmental multi-
disciplinary issues both as original and also as an appellate authority,
which complex issues were hitherto dealt with by the High Courts and E
the Supreme Court.
13.4 The NGT, therefore, was intended to be the competent forum
for dealing with environmental issues instead of those being canvassed
under the writ jurisdiction of the Courts. It was explicitly noted that the
creation of the NGT would allow for the Supreme Court and High Court F
to avoid intervening under their inherent jurisdiction when an alternative
efficacious remedy would become available before the specialized forum.
The 186th Law Commission Report provided the following reasoning,
“Likewise, we have not thought it fit to enable the Environmental
Courts, to have judicial review powers exercised by the High Court G
under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. We have felt that it is
sufficient to vest original civil jurisdiction as exercisable by a Civil
Court, in the Environmental Courts. If we vest powers of Judicial
review as under Art. 226, then there may be need to subject the
orders to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts as held in L. Chandra
Kumar vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261. H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A No doubt, the Environment Court exercising powers of a Civil
Court or as an appellate Court in civil jurisdiction, may be technically
amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court but inasmuch as
we are providing an appeal to the Supreme Court, the High Courts
may decline to interfere on the ground that there is an effective
alternative remedy of appeal on law and fact to the Supreme
B
Court, as explained later in this Chapter.”7
Thus, the power of judicial review was omitted to ensure avoidance
of High Courts’ interference with the Tribunal’s orders by way of a mid-
way scrutiny by the High Court, before the matter travels to the Supreme
Court where NGT’s orders can be challenged. The streamlining of the
C mechanism was to arrest the growing tide of litigation before High Courts
and the Supreme Court and shift such issues to the domain of the NGT.
13.5 This is how the proposed forum was made free from the
rules of evidence and the NGT was permitted to lay down its own
procedure to entertain oral and documentary evidence, consult experts
D etc. The observance of the principles of natural justice was however
mandated.
II. PREAMBLE & STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND
REASONS
14.1 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act will
E 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 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
F
environment. The United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development held at Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992, in which
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
G regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution
and other environmental damage.
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.
H 7
Chapter II, 186th Law Commission Report.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 31
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

4. The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was enacted to A
provide for strict liability for damages arising 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 to persons,
B
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, operations or processes or class of industries, operations C
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 scope of its jurisdiction.
5. Taking into account account the large number of environmental D
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 Commission has recommended the setting up of
environmental courts having both original and appellate jurisdiction E
relating to environmental laws.
6. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, a need has been felt to
establish a specialized tribunal to handle the multidisciplinary issues
involved in environmental cases. Accordingly, it has been decided
to enact a law to provide for the establishment of the National F
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 legal
right relating to environment.”
14.2 A reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons shows
G
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 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 H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A which involve multi-disciplinary issues and, in such cases, the Supreme
Court had requested the Law Commission of India to consider the need
for constitution of specialized environmental Courts.
14.3 Significantly, the Statement of Objects and Reasons also refers
to right to a healthy environment being a part of the right to life under
B 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
and satisfactory judicial procedure”. An institution concerned with a
significant aspect of right to life necessarily should be given the most
C liberal construction.
14.4 The paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons
refers to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
held at Stockholm in June 1972 which called upon governments and
peoples to exert common efforts for the preservation and improvement
D 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 protect it,
must be provided with the wherewithal to discharge its protective,
preventive and remedial function towards protection of the environment.
E 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.
14.5 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
F judicial and administrative proceedings, lay out redress and remedy and
to develop national laws regarding 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
G India. The National Green Tribunal was born in our country with such
lofty dreams to deal with multi-disciplinary issues, relating to the
environment.
14.6 The limited mandate conferred on the earlier forum i.e. the
NET and the narrow scope of jurisdiction of the National Environment
H Appellate Authority along with the involvement of multi-disciplinary issues
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 33
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

arising in environmental cases, were intended to be addressed through A
the constitution of the NGT.
III.THE NEED FOR PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION
15.1 While adequate clarity is discernible in the phraseology that
is employed under Section 14 and other provisions of the NGT Act, as
shall be discussed in later parts of the judgement, the intention behind B
the statute should receive our careful attention.Tracing the legislative
history for creation of the NGT it is seen that the NGT is intended to
address wide ranging societal concerns and these have prompted us to
opt for purposive interpretation. The Statue will have to be read in its
entirety and each provision of the Act must be given its due meaning by C
comprehending the mischief it intends to remedy. The chosen interpretive
exercise is best understood from the treatise Interpretation of Statutes,
authored byJustice G.P. Singh who explained thus,
“When the question arises as to the meaning of certain provision
in statute, it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision
D
in its context. The context here means, the statute as a whole, the
previous state of the law, other statutes in pari materia, the general
scope of the statute, and the mischief that it was intended to
remedy. This statement of the rule was later fully adopted by the
Supreme Court.
It is a rule now firmly established that the intention of the E
Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. The
rule is referred to as an ‘elementary rule’ by Viscount Simonds: a
compelling rule by Lord Sommervell of Harrow; and a “settled
rule” by B.K. Mukherjee J. “I agree” said Lord Halsbury, “that
you must look at the whole in order to give effect, if it be possible F
to do so, to the intention of the framer of it.”
15.2 The mischief that the NGT Act attempted to remedy were
underscored in the legislative history, and the pronouncements of the
constitutional Courts flagging their environmental concerns.
15.3 The application of the Heydon’s Rule could adequately aid G
us here as the Rule directs adoption of that construction which “shall
suppress the mischief and advance the remedy” as was pertinently
observed by Justice S.R. Das, for a seven judge bench in Bengal
Immunity Co. vs. State of Bihar8,
8
1955 (2) SCR 603; AIR 1955 SC 661 H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A “...the office of all judges is to make such construction as shal
suppresses the mischief and advance the remedy, and to suppress
subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief;
and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure
and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act,
pro bono publico.”
B
15.4 Francis Bennion in his book Statutory Interpretation
described ‘purposive interpretation’ as under:
‘A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives
effect to the legislative purpose by—
C (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that
meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or
(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in
accordance with the legislative purpose.’

D 15.5 Justice Frankfurter of US Supreme Court in ‘Some
Reflections on the Reading of Statutes’, has elucidated on the principles
to ascertain the contextual meaning of statutes in the following manner,
‘The purpose of construction being the ascertainment of meaning,
every con- sideration brought to bear for the solution of that
problem must be devoted to that end alone.
E
...
Judge Learned Hand speaks of the art of interpretation as ‘the
proliferation of purpose’.”9
Eventually, Justice Frankfurter relied upon Justice Benjamin
F Cardozo’s phraseology in Panama Refining Co. Vs. Ryan, and the same
is taken as a lodestar in our quest,
“the meaning of a statute is to be looked for, not in any single
section, but in all the parts together and in their relation to the end
in view”10.
G
15.6 The laudatory objectives for creation of the NGT would
implore us to adopt such an interpretive process which will achieve the
legislative purpose and will eschew procedural impediment or so to say

9
47 Columbia Law Review 527
10
H 293 U.S. 388 (1935) (dissenting)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 35
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

incapacity. The precedents of this Court, suggest a construction which A
fulfills the object of the Act.11 The choice for this Court would be to lean
towards the interpretation that would allow fructification of the legislative
intention and is forward looking. The provisions must be read with the
intention to accentuate them, especially as they concern protections of
rights under Article 21 and also deal with vital environmental policy and
B
its regulatory aspects.
IV. SALIENT STATUTORY FEATURES OF NGT ACT -
16.1 Applying the chosen tool of interpretation to the statutory
layout of the NGT Act, following provisions will require the Court’s
attention. Section 2(1)(c) of the NGT Act defines the term “environment”;
Section 2(1)(m) defines “substantial question relating to environment”. C
Chapter III relates to jurisdiction, power and proceedings of the Tribunal.
The Section 14 gives original jurisdiction to the NGT to decide a substantial
question relating to environment; Section 15 deals with relief,
compensation and restitution whereby besides providing relief to the
victims of pollution, the NGT can direct restitution of property damage D
and restitution of environment for such area(s) “as the Tribunal may
think fit”. Section 16 gives appellate jurisdiction to the Tribunal against
the orders passed under various enactments. Section 17 provides for
liability to pay relief or compensation in certain cases, Section 18 specifies
who can move application/appeal before the Tribunal. It includes, among
others, 18(2)(d) “any person aggrieved including any representative E
body / organization” and the locus standi is not limited only to the
aggrieved party. Section 19 provides for procedure and powers of the
Tribunal. Section 19(1) significantly says that the Tribunal shall not be
bound by procedures laid down in the CPC and shall be bound by the
Principles of Natural Justice. Section 19(2) provides that subject to the F
provisions of the Act, the Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own
procedure. Section 19(3) mentions that the Tribunal shall not be bound
by the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. While
discharging functions under Section 19(4), besides summoning, enforcing
attendance, examining persons on oath, requiring discovery and production
of documents, receiving evidence on oath, the NGT also has powers to G
review its decision, to pass interim orders as well as pass cease and
desist orders. Section 20 says that while adjudicating issues, the Tribunal
shall apply the environmental principles, namely, sustainable development
11
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia (2008) 3 SCC 279. H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A principles, precautionary principles and polluter pays principle. Under
Section 25, the Tribunal can execute its order/decision as a decree of
the Civil Court and for that purpose shall have all the powers of a Civil
Court. Section 29 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain all
environmental matters covered by the Tribunal. Under Section 33, the
NGT Act has an overriding effect over other laws.
B
16.2 While on the statutory provisions, it is seen that the Central
Government has framed the National Green Tribunal (Practice &
Procedure) Rules, 2011 (for short “the NGT Rules”). For our purpose,
Rule 24 is important which reads thus:
“24. Order and directions in certain cases – The Tribunal
C
may make such orders or give such directions as may be
necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent
abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”
16.3 The said Rules make it clear that the NGT has been given
wide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. This power is
D coupled with the duty to be exercised for achieving the objectives. The
intention understandably being to preserve and protect the environment
and the matters connected thereto.
16.4 By choosing to employ a phrase of wide import, i.e. secure
the ends of justice, the legislature has nudged towards a liberal
E interpretation. Securing justice is a term of wide amplitude and does not
simply mean adjudicating disputes between two rival entities. It also
encompasses inter alia, advancing causes of environmental rights,
granting compensation to victims of calamities, creating schemes for
giving effect to the environmental principles and even hauling up
F authorities for inaction, when need be.
16.5 Moreover, unlike the civil courts which cannot travel beyond
the relief sought by the parties, the NGT is conferred with power of
moulding any relief. The provisions show that the NGT is vested with
the widest power to appropriate relief as may be justified in the facts
and circumstances of the case, even though such relief may not be
G
specifically prayed for by the parties.
16.6 Another distinguishing feature of the environmental forum is
on the aspect of locus standi which was made as wide as is available to
the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Thus, any person or organization
who may be interested in the subject matter is permitted to approach the
H NGT.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 37
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

16.7 The provisions of the NGT Act and the NGT Rules A
demonstrate that myriad roles are to be discharged by the NGT, as was
encapsulated in the Law Commission Report, the Preamble and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons. This is also forthcoming from the
international obligation and commitment by India to implement the decision
taken at the Stockholm and the Rio De Janeiro Conventions towards
B
protection of the environmental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
V. NON-ADJUDICATORY ROLES OF NGT
17.1 As can be seen, the Parliament intended to confer wide
jurisdiction on the NGT so that it can deal with the multitude of issues
relating to the environment which were being dealt with by the High C
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or by the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunal is also expected to
proceed with such matters with the understanding that environment and
environmental principles are part of Article 21 of the Constitution. [See
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. UOI12; M.C. Mehta vs. UOI13etc.]
D
17.2 The Schedule I of the NGT Act is concerned with
implementation of few environmental related enactments such as the
Water Act, the Air Act, the Environment Act, the Forest Conservation
Act etc. As one looks at these enactments, an expanded role for the
NGT is clearly discernible. The activities of the NGT are not only geared
towards the protection of the environment but also to ensure that the E
developments do not cause serious and irreparable damage to the ecology
and the environment. These would suggest a broad canvas for the NGT
Act as also its creation.
17.3 For the environmental forum, tasked with implementation of
the statutes mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, the concept of lis, F
would obviously be beyond the usual understanding in civil cases where
there is a party (whether private or government) disturbing the environment
and the other one (could be an individual, a body or the government
itself), who has concern for the protection of environment. Therefore,
the NGT is primarily concerned with protection of the environment and G
also preservation of the natural resources. As the specialized forum, the
NGT would be expected to take preventive action, besides settling and
adjudicating disputes and pass orders on all environment related questions.
12
(1996) 5 SCC 647
13
(1997) 2 SCC 353 H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 17.4 The NGT is not just an adjudicatory body but has to perform
wider functions in the nature of prevention, remedy and amelioration.
This aspect was specifically flagged in the 186th Law Commission Report,
“The Environment Court, in our view, must have power to frame
schemes and monitor them and also have power to modify the
B schemes from time to time. If one looks at the problems raised in
several cases and the directions issued by the Supreme Court, it
will be observed that such a power is necessary to be vested in
these Courts. .... The Environment Court must be able to provide
an “environmental solution” to grave problems like the one
mentioned above and unless it has power to frame comprehensive
C schemes which will involve issuing directions to various
departments, the solution cannot be implemented. Such a
comprehensive jurisdiction is now being exercised both by the
Supreme Court and High Courts. In our view, the proposed Courts
must have similar powers. They will also have to monitor the
D schemes till they are successfully implemented on ground and, if
necessary, modify the schemes from time to time.”
18. We have earlier discussed that the NGT is empowered to
carry out restitutive exercise for compensating persons adversely affected
by environmental events. The larger discourse which informs such
E functions is related to distributive and corrective justice, as will be
elaborated in later paragraphs. Even in the absence of harm inflicted by
human agency, in a situation of a natural calamity, the Tribunal will be
required to devise a plan for alleviating damage. An inquisitorial function
is also available for the Tribunal, within and without adversarial
significance. Importantly, many of these functions do not require an active
F “dispute”, but the formulation of decisions.
19.1 With the constitution of the NGT, many cases pending before
the High Courts were transferred to the NGT. Apprehending the possibility
of conflict between the High Courts and the NGT (in matters concerning
environment and the statutes mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act),
G Justice Swatanter Kumar speaking for the three Judge Bench in Bhopal
Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan vs. Union of India 14 ,
highlighted the NGT’s role in the context, in the following words: -
“40. Keeping in view the provisions and scheme of the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “the NGT Act”) particularly
H 14
(2012) 8 SCC 326
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 39
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

Sections 14, 29, 30 and 38(5), it can safely be concluded that the A
environmental issues and matters covered under the NGT Act,
Schedule I should be instituted and litigated before the National
Green Tribunal (for short “NGT”). Such approach may be
necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the
High Courts and NGT. Thus, in unambiguous terms, we direct
B
that all the matters instituted after coming into force of the NGT
Act and which are covered under the provisions of the NGT Act
and/or in Schedule I to the NGT Act shall stand transferred and
can be instituted only before NGT. This will help in rendering
expeditious and specialised justice in the field of environment to
all concerned. C

41. We find it imperative to place on record a caution for
consideration of the courts of competent jurisdiction that the cases
filed and pending prior to coming into force of the NGT Act,
involving questions of environmental laws and/or relating to any
of the seven statutes specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, D
should also be dealt with by the specialised tribunal, that is, NGT,
created under the provisions of the NGT Act. The courts may be
well advised to direct transfer of such cases to NGT in its
discretion, as it will be in the fitness of administration of justice.”
19.2 In the above case, this Court mandated transfer of all cases E
concerning the statutes mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act to the
specialized forum as otherwise there can be conflicts with the High
Courts. Notably, some of those cases were originally registered suo
motu by the Courts.
F
VI EXERCISE OF SUO MOTU POWER BY NGT
20. Let us now explore whether the NGT in discharge of its
functions, should also have suo motu power. The specialized tribunal’s
exercise of suo motu powers is somewhat distinct from those exercised
by the constitutional Courts. The Supreme Court and High Courts can G
foray into any issues under their constitutional mandate but the NGT
cannot naturally travel beyond its environmental domain in reference to
the scheduled enactments. However, As long as the sphere of action is
not breached, the NGT’s powers must be understood to be of the widest
amplitude.
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 21.1 Explaining the purpose for constituting the special court to
deal with environmental issues, in Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward
Foundation15, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer writing for the three Judge Bench,
made the following pertinent observations on the status of the NGT:-
“40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional
B mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the
Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at the 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
C enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment. The
right to healthy environment has been 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.”
D 21.2 As can be seen from the quoted passage, this Court recognized
that the NGT is set up under the constitutional mandate in Entry 13 of
List I in Schedule VII to enforce Article 21 with respect to the
environment and in the context observed that the Tribunal has special
jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights.
E 21.3 Elaborating further, in paragraphs 44-46, the Supreme Court
expressed that the interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction
should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction. It was
specifically noted that,
“46. ... As stated supra the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth
F of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of the Act
as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves no
manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these
provisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour of
cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. An interpretation
G that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred rather
than one taking away jurisdiction.”
21.4 Such being the wide contour of the NGT’s powers, the
exposition in Rajeev Suri vs. DDA16 was not to constrict the suo motu
15
(2019) 18 SCC 494
16
H 2021 SCC Online SC 7.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 41
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

powers of the NGT. To appreciate the implication of the ratio in Rajeev A
Suri, it must be noticed that it was in the specific context of ‘Merits
Review’ and the NGT transgressing beyond its environmental mandate.
This is why, one of us, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar observed that,
“503. NGT is not a plenary body with inherent powers to address
concerns of a residuary character. It is a statutory body with limited B
mandate over environmental matters as and when they arise for
its consideration. In a cause before it, NGT cannot directly go on
to adjudicate on concerns of violation of fundamental rights and
once the contours of a subject matter traverse the scope of appeal
from a grant of EC, the merits review by tribunal cannot traverse
beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in it by the statute.” C
21.5 Thus, the ratio in Rajeev Suri to the quoted extent will not
clash with the view propounded here as the exposition is not to allow
any inherent power of residuary character for the NGT. In its own domain,
as crystalized by the statute, the role of the NGT is clearly discernible.
D
21.6 The need for an expert body with extensive functions and
the sources of inspiration behind it was articulated in Andhra Pradesh
Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors.17
where Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for a Division Bench referred
to a comparable court in Australia and noted the following,
“The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in E
Australia, established in 1980, could be the ideal. It is a superior
court of record and is composed of four Judges and nine technical
and conciliation assessors. Its jurisdiction combines appeal, judicial
review and enforcement functions. Such a composition in our
opinion is necessary and ideal in environmental matters.” F
The above would show that from the very inception, the role of
the NGT was not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis but to perform
equally vital roles which are preventative, ameliorative or remedial in
nature. The functional capacity of the NGT was intended to leverage
wide powers to do full justice in its environmental mandate.
G
VII. UNIQUENESS OF NGT VIS-A-VIS OTHER
TRIBUNALS
22.1 While we see many tribunals functioning within their specified
domains, variances do exist in the manner in which they are designed to
17
(1999) 2 SCC 718 H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A function.The statutory Tribunals were categorized to fall under four
subheads; Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A; Tribunals under
Article 323B; Specialized sector Tribunals and most prominently;
Tribunals to safeguard rights under Article 21. As already noted, the
duties of NGT brings it within the ambit of the fourth category, creating
a compelling proposition for wielding much broader powers as delineated
B
by the statute.
22.2 The ideal was to create a fairly proactive and responsive
Institution which could step into varying roles, as the situation demanded.
Commenting on the specialized and unique role of the NGT, Justice Ashok
Bhushan in State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union18,
C fittingly observed thus:-
“163. The object for which the said power is given is not far to
seek. To fulfil the objective of the NGT Act, 2010, NGT has to
exercise a wide range of jurisdiction and has to possess wide
range of powers to do justice in a given case. The power is given
D to exercise for the benefit of those who have right for clean
environment which right they have to establish before the Tribunal.
The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty to exercise
such powers for achieving the objects. In this regard reference is
made to the judgment of this Court in L. Hirday Narain v. CIT [L.
E Hirday Narain v. CIT, (1970) 2 SCC 355] , wherein this Court
was examining provision empowering authority to do something.
This Court laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 359)
“14. The High Court observed that under Section 35 of the Indian
Income Tax Act, 1922, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer
F is discretionary. If thereby it is intended that the Income Tax Officer
has discretion to exercise or not to exercise the power to rectify,
that view is in our judgment erroneous. Section 35 enacts that the
Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income
Tax Officer may rectify any mistake apparent from the record. If
a statute invests a public officer with authority to do an act in a
G specified set of circumstances, it is imperative upon him to exercise
his authority in a manner appropriate to the case when a party
interested and having a right to apply moves in that behalf and
circumstances for exercise of authority are shown to exist. Even
if the words used in the statute are prima facie enabling, the courts
H 18
(2019) 8 SCC 177
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 43
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

will readily infer a duty to exercise power which is invested in aid A
of enforcement of a right—public or private—of a citizen.”
22.3 Reflecting on the expanded role of NGT unlike other Tribunals,
this Court so appositely observed that the forum has a duty to do justice
while exercising “wide range of jurisdiction” and the “wide range of
powers”, given to it by the statute. B
23. During the course of its functioning, the NGT has been
recognized as one of the most progressive Tribunals in the world. This
jurisprudential leap has allowed our country to enter a rather exclusive
group of nations which have set up such institutions with broad powers.
To understand how the NGT is perceived globally, we may usefully refer C
to the views of Chief Justice Brian Preston of the Land and Environment
Court of NSW Australia,
“The NGT is an example of a specialized court to better achieve
the goals of ensuring access to justice, upholding the rule of law
and promoting good governance.”19 D
VIII. THE SUI GENERIS ROLE OF NGT
24.1 The NGT being one of its own kind of forum, commends us
to consider the concept of a sui generis role, for the institution. The
structure of Sui generis institutions was explained in Paramjit Kaur E
Vs. State of Punjab20, wherein Justice S. Saghir Ahmad spoke thus for
a Division Bench,
“14. The concept of sui generis is applied quite often with reference
to resolution of disputes in the context of international law. When
the conventions formulated by compacting nations do not cover F
any area territorially or any subject topically, then the body to
which such power to arbiter is entrusted acts sui generis, that is,
on its own and not under any law.”
24.2 In DG NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch 21, Justice S.
Ravindra Bhat commenting on the sui generis role of the NGT, so G
appropriately stated as follows:-

19
GILL, G. (2020). Mapping the Power Struggles of the National Green Tribunal of
India: The Rise and Fall? Asian Journal of Law and Society,7(1), 85-126.
20
(1999) 2 SCC 131
21
2020 SCC Online SC 572 H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A “38. A conjoint reading of Sections 14, 15 and the Schedules would
lead one to infer that the NGT has circumscribed jurisdiction to
deal with, adjudicate, and wherever needed, direct measures such
as payment of compensation, or make restitutionary directions in
cases where the violation (i.e. harm caused due to pollution or
exposure to hazards, etc.) are the result of infraction of any
B
enactment listed in the first schedule. Yet, that, interpretation, in
the opinion of this court, is not warranted.
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
76. The power and jurisdiction of the NGT under Sections 15(1)(b)
C and (c) are not restitutionary, in the sense of restoring the
environment to the position it was before the practise impugned,
or before the incident occurred. The NGT’s jurisdiction in one
sense is a remedial one, based on a reflexive exercise of its powers.
In another sense, based on the nature of the abusive practice, its
powers can also be preventive.
D
77. As a quasi-judicial body exercising both appellate jurisdiction
over regulatory bodies’ orders and directions (under Section 16)
and its original jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the
NGT Act, the tribunal, based on the cases and applications made
before it, is an expert regulatory body. Its personnel include
E technically qualified and experienced members. The powers it
exercises and directions it can potentially issue, impact not merely
those before it, but also state agencies and state departments
whose views are heard, after which general directions to prevent
the future occurrence of incidents that impact the environment,
F are issued.”
24.3 In that case, this Court repelled the argument for a restricted
jurisdiction for the NGT, and fittingly observed in paragraph 76 that the
powers conferred on the NGT are both reflexive and preventive and the
role of the NGT was recognized in paragraph 77 as “an expert
G regulatory body”, which can issue general directions also albeit within
the statutory framework.
24.4 The above discussion would advise us to say that the NGT
was conceived as a specialized forum not only as a like substitute for a
civil court but more importantly to take over all the environment related
cases from the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Many of those
H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 45
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

cases transferred to the NGT, emanated in the superior courts and it A
would be appropriate thus to assume that similar power to initiate suo
motu proceedings should also be available with the NGT.
24.5 The NGT is a Tribunal with sui generis characteristic, with
the special and all-encompassing jurisdiction to protect the environment.
Besides its adjudicatory role as an appellate authority, it is also conferred B
with the responsibility to discharge role of supervisory body and to decide
substantial questions relating to the environment. The necessity of having
a specialized body, with the expertise to handle multi-dimensional
environmental issues allows for an all-encompassing framework for
environmental justice. The technical expertise that may be required to
address evolving environmental concerns would definitely require a C
flexible institutional mechanism for its effective exercise.
IX. AUTHORITY WITH SELF-ACTIVATING CAPABILITY
25.1 Given the multifarious role envisaged for the NGT and the
purposive interpretation which ought to be given to the statutory provisions, D
it would be fitting to regard the NGT as having the mechanism to set in
motion all necessary functions within its domain and this, as would follow
from the discussion below, should necessarily clothe it with the authority
to take suo motu cognizance of matters, for effective discharge of its
mandate.
E
25.2 The analysis for this segment should commence with Section
14 of the NGT Act and the same being of great relevance is being
extracted hereunder,
“ 14. Tribunal to settle disputes. - (1) The Tribunal shall have the
jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating F
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.
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions
referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass
G
order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section
shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a
period of six months from the date on which the cause of action
for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is
H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from
filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed
within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
25.3 The Section 14(1) of the NGT Act deals with jurisdiction,
andthe jurisdictional provision conspicuously omits to specify that an
B application is necessary to trigger the NGT into action. In situations
where the three prerequisites of Section 14(1) i.e., Civil cases;
involvement of substantial question of environment; and implementation
of the enactments in Schedule I are satisfied, the jurisdiction and power
of the NGT gets activated. On these material aspects, the NGT is not
required to be triggered into action by an aggrieved or interested party
C alone. It would therefore be logical to conclude that the exercise of
power by the NGT is not circumscribed by receipt of application. When
substantial questions relating to the environment arise and the issue is
civil in nature and those relate to the enactments in Schedule I of the
Act, the NGT in our opinion even in the absence of an application, can
D self-ignite action either towards amelioration or towards prevention of
harm.
25.4 In the same spirit, we find merit in the arguments that Section
14(1) exists as a standalone feature, not constricted by the operational
mechanism of the subsequent subsections. The sub Section (2) of Section
E 14 functions as a corollary and comes into play when a dispute arises
from the questions referred to in Section 14(1). Likewise sub Section
(3) thereafter, refers to the period of limitation concerning applications,
when they are addressed to the NGT. Where adjudication is involved,
the adjudicatory function under Section 14(2) comes into play. When it
is a case warranting NGT’s intervention, or may be a situation calling
F for decisions to meet certain exigencies, the functions under Section
14(1) can be undertaken and those may not involve any formal application
or an adjudicatory process. However, the later provisions may not work
in similar fashion. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure unrestricted
discharge of the responsibilities under Section 14(1) and that wide arena
G of NGT’s functioning.
25.5 The other pertinent provisions relating to, inter-alia,
jurisdiction, interim orders, payment of compensation and review, do not
require any application or appeal, for the NGT to pass necessary orders.
These crucial powers are expected to be exercised by the NGT, would
H logically suggest that the action/orders of the NGT need not always
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 47
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

involve any application or appeal.To hold otherwise would not only reduce A
its effectiveness but would also defeat the legal mandate given to the
forum.
25.6 It may also be relevant to bear in mind that while dealing
with contested cases, the NGT is required to pass “award” and “order”
and the statute repeatedly uses the word “decision”. Therefore, it is B
appropriate to correlate the word “decision” to the NGT, in its non-
adversarial or inquisitorialrole, as was suggested by the Law Commission
and recognized in DG, NHAI (supra).
25.7 The duty to safeguard Article 21 rights cannot stand on a
narrow compass of interpretation. Procedural provisions must be allowed C
to fall in step with the substantive rights that are invoked in the
environmental domain, in larger public interest. The specialized forum is
bestowed with the responsibility to ensure protection of the environment.
To be effective in its domain, we need to ascribe to the NGT a public
responsibility to initiate action when required, to protect the substantive
right of a clean environment and the procedural law should not be D
obstructive in its application. In the context, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
speaking for a Division Bench in State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal
Murari & Anr.22 has so correctly prioritized the substantive rights and
observed succinctly,
“8. ...We must always remember that processual law is not to be a E
tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been
wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not
the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.”
25.8 While discussing the NGT’s power and responsibility, it is
essential to keep in mind the Principle 10 of theRio Declaration which F
speaks of three fundamental rights i.e., access to information, access to
public participation and access to justice, as key pillars of environmental
governance. Access to justice, may however be curtailed by illiteracy,
lack of mobility, poverty or even the lack of technical knowledge on the
part of citizens. Another deterrence is the likelihood of polluters/violators G
being powerful entities with adequate wherewithal to skirt regulations.
Thus, it may not always be feasible for individuals to knock on the doors
of the Tribunal, and NGT in such exigencies must not be made
dysfunctional.
22
(1976) 1 SCC 719 H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A X. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
26.1 Tracing the origin of the Precautionary Principle, Scott
Lafranchi in his treatise23 has expounded on the proactive role of the
authorities in the following passage: -
“Many consider the German development of Vorsorgeprinzip to
B signify the true creation of the precautionary principle, in light of
the attention it focuses on “long term planning to avoid damage to
the environment, early detection of dangers to health and
environment through comprehensive research, and acting in
advance of conclusive scientific evidence of harm.”16 The
C precautionary foundation of Vorsorgeprinzip has been described
as an “action principle” that holds public authorities responsible
for protecting the natural foundations of life and preserving the
physical world for the present and future generations, and “‘can
therefore be used to counter the short-termism endemic in all
democratic, consumption oriented societies.’”
D
26.2 The origin of the Precautionary Principle itself is rooted as
an institutional obligation, by holding them primarily responsible for the
environmental concerns and remedies.
26.3 As earlier seen, S.20 of the NGT Act which includes the
E term “decision”, in addition to “order” and “award”, also require the
Tribunal to apply the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the statutory
mandate being relevant is extracted: -
“20. Tribunal to apply certain principles. - The Tribunal shall, while
passing any order or decisions or award, apply the principles of
F sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the
polluter pays principle.”
26.4 The principle set out above must apply in the widest amplitude
to ensure that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposes but also
for other ‘decisions’ or ‘orders’ to governmental authorities or polluters,
when they fail to “to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
G
environmental degradation” 24. Two aspects must therefore be
23
Scott LaFranchi, Surveying the Precautionary Principle’s Ongoing Global
Development: The Evolution of an Emergent Environmental Management Tool, 32
B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 679 (2005)
24
Vellore Citizens (supra), S. Jagannathan v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87, Karnataka
H Industrial Areas Development Board v. C Kenchappa and Ors (2006) 6 SCC 371.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 49
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

emphasized i.e. that the Tribunal is itself required to carry out preventive A
and protective measures, as well as hold governmental and private
authorities accountable for failing to uphold environmental interests. Thus,
a narrow interpretation for NGT’s powers should be eschewed to adopt
one which allows for full flow of the forum’s power within the
environmental domain.
B
26.5 It is not only a matter of rhetoric that the Tribunal is to remain
ever vigilant, but an important legal onus is cast upon it to act with
promptitude to deal with environmental exigencies. The responsibility is
not just to resolve legal ambiguities but to arrive at a reasoned and fair
result for environmental problems which are adversarial as well as non-
adversarial. It would be apposite here to refer to Justice Benjamin C
Cardozo, of the United States Supreme Court, who in his seminal treatise,
‘The Nature of the Judicial Process’, stated thus,
“It is true that codes and statutes do not render the judge
superfluous, nor his work perfunctory and mechanical. There are
gaps to be filled. There are doubts and ambiguities to be cleared. D
There are hardships and wrongs to be mitigated if not avoided.”
The above could be a pointer towards the preemptive functions
of the NGT as a sui generis body.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ENVIROMENTAL E
EQUITY
27.1 The conceptual frameworks of environmental justice and
equity should merit consideration vis-à-vis the NGT’s domain and how
its functioning and decisions can have wide implications in socio-economic
dimensions of people at large. The concept of environmental justice is a F
trifecta of distributive justice, procedural justice and justice as
recognition.25 Environmental equity as a developing concept has focused
on the disproportionate implications of environmental harms on the
economically or socially marginalized groups. The concerns of human
rights and environmental degradation overlap under this umbrella term,
to highlight the human element, apart from economic and environmental G
ramifications. Environmental equity thus stands to ensure a balanced
distribution of environmental risks as well as protections, including
application of sustainable development principles.
25
Schlosberg D, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature
(Oxford University Press 2009) H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 27.2 Voicing concerns about the disproportionate harm for the
poor segments, Lois J. Schiffer (then Assistant Attorney General,
Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD), U.S. Department
of Justice) and Timothy J. Dowling (then Attorney at ENRD) in their
Reflections on the Role of the Courts in Environmental Law, wrote
the following evocative passage on the concept of environmental justice,
B
“Environmental Justice, which focuses on whether minorities and
low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of exposure to
environmental harms and any resulting health effects. In the past
ten to fifteen years, this issue has crystallized a grass-roots
movement that combines civil rights issues with environmental
C issues, with a goal of achieving “environmental justice” or
“environmental equity,” which is understood to mean the fair
distribution of environmental risks and protection from
environmental harms.”26
27.3 There is also a need to focus on the interconnection between
principles of procedural justice and distributive justice. The concern is to
D create a system which is affirmative enough to balance the
disproportionate wielding of power between polluters and affected people.
“Environmental justice starts with distributive justice, or more
accurately, distributive injustice. The rich and powerful derive the
most benefit while suffering the least harm from environmentally
E harmful activities; conversely, the poor and minorities derive the
least benefit but suffer the most harm.Further, those who benefit
cause harm to the places where people “live, work, play, and go
to school,” whereas the people who reside there do little or nothing
to harm their community.” 27
When substantive justice is elusive for a large segment, disengaging
F
with substantive rights at the very altar, for a perceived procedural lacuna,
would surely bring in a process, which furthers inequality, both economic
and social. An “equal footing” conception may not therefore be feasible
to adequately address the asymmetrical relationship between the polluters
and those affected by their actions. Instead, a recognition of the historical
G experience of marginalized classes of persons while accessing and
effectively using the legal system, will allow for necessary appreciation
of social realities and balancing the arm of justice.
26
Schiffer, L. J., & Dowling, T. J. (1997). Reflections On The Role Of The Courts In
Environmental Law. Environmental Law, 27(2), 327–342.
27
Jeff Todd, A “Sense of Equity” in Environmental Justice Litigation, 44 HARV. ENVTL.
H L. REV. 169, 193 (2020).
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 51
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

27.4 The law must be interpreted in such a manner as to foster A
further development of existing legal concepts by incorporating this sense
of equity. The issues which this Court has had the occasion to examine
have highlighted the limitations of the mechanisms to reach to the heart
of environmental concerns. This Court has previously moulded the
jurisdictional jurisprudence in favour of larger societal interest, whether
that be in the form of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ or widening the scope B
of locus standi.
“The identification of potential environmental justice issues is very
important in determining how our enforcement efforts are working
in minority and low-income communities, and whether they are
comparable to the enforcement efforts in other communities.” 28 C
27.5 In the backdrop of the above weighty concerns, this Court
should advert to what Schiffer and Dowling have stated on the ‘Blindfold
of Lady Justice’, which symbolizes “the ideal of administering equal
justice to everyone who comes to our Courts, regardless of race,
creed, or economic class.”29 The relevance of this concept is particularly
apposite when we consider the inability of most marginalized communities, D
to access the legal machinery.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA
28.1 Proceeding with the above understating, we can comfortably
place the NGT within the rubric of the larger environmental jurisprudence
which has been informing this unique institution. The role of this Court in E
establishing the legal connect between matters of environmental concern
and fundamental rights of citizens, has produced much academic literature.
Amongst others, Armin Rosencranz and Shyam Divan in their writing-
Environmental Law And Policy In India, have noted that the field of
laws pertaining to environmental concerns has been a fairly fertile ground
for judicial innovations by this Court; moving the concept of Environmental F
law from the realm of torts to interlink it with fundamental rights 30,
liberalizing the concept of locus standi in environmental matters,
exercising suo motu powers to reign in polluters, using expert committees
to monitor implementation of Court orders, etc. 31
28
Supra Note 26.
29
Ibid
G
30
Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra & Ors V. State Of U. P. & Ors AIR 1985 SC
652,Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613, Virender Gaur Vs. State of
Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577
31
See M.A.A. Baig, Environmental Law And Justice(1996). Domenico Amirante,
Environmental Courts In Comparative Perspective: Preliminary Reflections On The
National Green Tribunal Of India (2012). M.K. Ramesh, Environmental Justice: Courts
And Beyond, Indian Jo. Of Envtl. L. 20(2002). H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 28.2 By expanding the scope of Articles 21, 32, 48A, 51A(g), this
Court has guaranteed the right to a pollution free environment for a
holistic existence.32 Most crucially, the expansion of Right to Life under
Article 21 by this Court has become a touchstone to determine many
environmental concerns. In Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, this
Court explicitly held the following,
B
“Right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free
water and air for full enjoyment of life.”33
28.3 Adopting international principles and moulding them to Indian
C realities also became a focal concern, given the lacunae in regimes which
may be exploited by those who may not have much concern for
environmental degradation. Creation of the ‘Absolute Liability
Principle’34 by this Court is a well recognized testament for this. It
would thus be appropriate to state that much of the principles, institutions
and mechanisms in this sphere have been created, on account of this
D Court’s initiative.
“The constitutionally-protected fundamental right to life and liberty
has been extended through judicial creativity to cover unarticulated
but implicit rights such as the right to a wholesome environment.
. . .The right was recognized as part of the right to life in 1991. .
E . . The court has since fleshed out the right to a wholesome
environment by integrating into Indian environmental jurisprudence
not just established but even nascent principles of international
environmental law.”35
28.4 It has been noted that the Supreme Court adopted the role of
F an “amicus environment” by threading together human rights and
environmental concerns, resultingly developing a sui generis
environmental discourse.36 There were both procedural and substantive
innovations made, by entertaining PIL petitions, seeking remedies,

32
G Maheshwara Swamy, N. Law Relating to Environmental Pollution and Protection.
India, Thompson Reuters, Vol.I, Ed.5.
33
(1991) 1 SCC 74.
34
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1987 SCC (1) 395.
35
Rajamani, Lavanya. 2007. Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring
Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability. Journal of
Environmental Law
36
H Supra, Note 19.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 53
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

including guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. Many of A
the landmark cases which hold the fort to this day, were in recognition of
the ‘at risk’ nature of some populations. The creation of the NGT itself
was due in large part to the need expressed by this Court for such a
forum.37
28.5 Justice T.S. Doabia in Environmental & Pollution Laws in B
India, has highlighted the larger societal concerns which have informed
this Court’s deliberation when dealing with environmental matters,
“The Supreme Court of India, in its interpretation of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, has facilitated the emergence of an
environmental jurisprudence in India, while also strengthening C
human rights jurisprudence.
...The Courts have successfully isolated specific environmental
law principles upon the interpretation of Indian statutes and the
Constitution, combined with a liberal view towards ensuring social
justice and the protection of human rights. The principles have D
often found reflection in the Constitution in some form, and are
usually justified even when not explicitly mentioned in the statute
concerned.” 38
28.6 Environmental jurisprudence in India has therefore been
intrinsic to advancing a democratic, welfare oriented legal regime. Issues E
affecting the ecology and the environment must have a broad perspective
and should have a society centric approach. Furthermore, the very nature
of ecological and environmental issues has the propensity for rapid
deterioration. Many such sensitive matters, as has been noted, stood
transferred to the NGT, with the aim that those would be dealt with
expediently with the required technical expertise and legal sophistication. F
The proactiveness of the superior Court was surely expected to be seen
in the Tribunal’s approach.
28.7 Analyzing the concept of the functioning of the NGT and its
role within the broader concept of the environmental rule of law, Justice
D.Y. Chandrachud speaking for a three judges Bench in H.P. Bus Stand G

37
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 176, Indian Council for Environmental-
Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212, A.P. Pollution Control Board vs.
M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. M.V. Nayudu
(2001) 2 SCC 62.
38
Justice T.S. Doabia, Environmental & Pollution Laws in India, 3rd Ed., Vol 2 (2017). H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A Management & Development Authority vs. Central Empowered
Committee39 so succinctly said that,
“40. The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of
the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features
that are unique to environmental governance, features which are
B sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential
tools – conceptual, procedural and institutional to bring structure
to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance
our understanding of environmental challenges – of how they have
been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how
they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the
C present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically
alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have
charted. The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi–
disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon
footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between
science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field
D
of environmental protection. It recognizes that the ‘law’ element
in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept
peculiarly the preserve of lawyers and judges. On the contrary, it
seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating
strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental
E degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The
environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these
concepts.”
28.8 It is this environmental rule of law that has been encapsulated
with the NGT’s creation at this Court’s behest. Professor Domenico
F Amirante in a comparative analysis of similar bodies across the world,
notes that,
“With reference to the judicial enforcement of environmental law
– which as we have seen should be considered an important
condition not only for sustainable development but also for the
sustainability of the legal environmental order – the National Green
G Tribunal of India seems to be the most comprehensive and
promising among the specialized environmental Courts created in
Asia over the last decade.” 40
39
(2021) 4 SCC 309
40
Domenico Amirante, Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective: Preliminary
H Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India, 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 441 (2012)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 55
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

The NGT therefore, is the institutionalizationof the developments A
made by this Court in the field of environment law. These progressive
steps have allowed it to inherit a very broad conception of environmental
concerns. Its functions therefore, must not be viewed in a cribbed manner,
which detracts from the progress already made in the Indian
environmental jurisprudence.
B
X. CONCLUSION:
29. Before we set out our conclusion, we acknowledge the able
contribution of Mr. Anand Grover as amicus curiae, assisted by Ms.
Astha Sharma, AOR who were requested to assist the Court on the
central issue of suo motu jurisdiction of NGT. C
30. The NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to
the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament’s intention
is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity
to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the
principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be D
explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT’s fabric. The
NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum,
and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of
environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must
necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court.
E
31. The environmental impacts on climate change are gaining
increasing visibility in the shape of uncertain rains, species extinction,
loss of natural habitat and so on. These also have the propensity to
diminish fresh water resources, reduce agricultural yields and impact
public health, particularly in the cities. The flooding and erosion in riverine
and coastal areas are matters of serious concern. Governmental F
assessment of India’s increased vulnerability to such changes in the near
future also exists41 with many countries declaring climate emergencies
and many others being urged to follow suit42.
32. Therefore, the nature of ecological imbalance which is visible
even in our own times may cascade, and the unforeseen injustice of the G

41
Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment, Climate Change and India: A 4X4
Assessment - A sectoral and regional analysis for 2030s, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India, 16 November 2010
42
Secretary-General’s Remarks at the Climate Ambition Summit. United Nations. United
Nations, December 12, 2020. H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A future may not be capable of being handled within the frontiers set forth
today. The long term and very often irreparable environmental damage
which are expected to be arrested by the NGT, urge this Court to advert
to what is termed as the ‘Seventh Generation’ sustainability
principle,or the ‘Great Law of the Iroquois’ (as it originates from the
Iroquois Tribe) which requires all decision making to withstand for the
B
benefit of seven generations down the line.
33. It is vital for the wellbeing of the nation and its people, to have
a flexible mechanism to address all issues pertaining to environmental
damage and resultant climate change so that we can leave behind a
C better environmental legacy, for our children, and the generations
thereafter.
34. In circumstances where adverse environmental impact may
be egregious, but the community affected is unable to effectively get the
machinery into action, a forum created specifically to address such
D concerns should surely be expected to move with expediency, and of its
own accord. The potentiality of disproportionate harm imposes a higher
obligation on authorities to preserve rights which may be waylaid due to
such restrictive access. It is also noteworthy that the “global impacts
of climate change will fall disproportionately on minority and low-
income communities”. 43 Thus, an affirmative role, beyond mere
E adjudication at the instance of applicant, is certainly required for serving
the ends of environmental justice, as the statute itself requires of the
NGT. We cannot validate an argument which furthers uncertainty to
justify the role of a spectator, if not inaction, and would most assuredly
result in injustice.
F 35. The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly
afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The
forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for
addressing environmental concerns. Such a society centric approach
must be allowed to work within the established safety valves of the
G principles of natural justice and appeal to the Supreme Court. The hands-
off mode for the NGT, when faced with exigencies requiring immediate
and effective response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its
responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice.

43
H Supra Note 23.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA 57
SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

36. It would be procedural hairsplitting to argue (as it has been) A
that the NGT could act upon a letter being written to it, but learning
about an environmental exigency through any other means cannot trigger
the NGT into action. To endorse such an approach would surely be
rendering the forum procedurally shackled or incapacitated.
37. When the Registry of the NGT does indeed receive a B
communication or letter, including matters published in media, it may
cause to initiate suo motu action by inviting attention of NGT to such
matters in the form of office report. Such circumstances would however
require a notice to be given to the sender of the communication or author
of the news item, as the case may be, to assist the NGT in the course of
C
hearing and to substantiate the factual matters. It must also be said that
the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction does not mean eschewing with the
principles of natural justice and fair play. In other words, the party likely
to be affected should be afforded due opportunity to present their side,
before suffering adverse orders.
D
38. One could admit to the argument of danger of suo motu
jurisdiction, if the NGT was acting outside its domain. But when it is
legitimately working within the contours of its statutory mandate and
with procedurals safeguards clarified above in play, the nature of the
trigger itself viz. a letter or a ‘suo motu’ initiation, cannot be the basis to
curtail the role and responsibility of the specialized forum. E
39. Institutions which are often addressing urgent concerns gain
little from procedural nitpicking, which are unwarranted in the face of
both the statutory spirit and the evolving nature of environmental
degradation. Not merely should a procedure exist but it must be
meaningfully effective to address such concerns. The role of such an F
institution cannot be mechanical or ornamental. We must therefore adopt
an interpretation which sustains the spirit of public good and not render
the environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective.
40. Let us now hark back to the dialogues of the two protagonists,
in Waiting for Godot, the play written by Samuel Beckett with which, G
we started this judgment. At the end of the deliberations, we find ourselves
saying that the National Green Tribunal must act, if the exigencies so
demand, without indefinitely waiting for the metaphorical Godot to knock
on its portal. The preceding discussion advises us to answer the pointed
question in the affirmative. It is accordingly declared that the NGT is
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the
NGT Act.
41. Having answered the common legal issue involved in all these
cases regarding the suo motu jurisdiction of NGT, we direct delinking of
these cases for now being heard separately on merits. Indeed, if the
B cases(s) emanate from same/common order of NGT, such case(s) be
heard together. Registry may do the needful and post the matters on
25.10.2021 for direction and fixing date of hearing, before the Bench
presided over by one of us (Justice A.M. Khanwilkar). For the purpose
of further hearing, the respective cases shall not be treated as part-
heard before this Bench.
C

Devika Gujral Legal issue answered.

D

E

F

G

H