Holding

The NGT exceeded its jurisdiction; appointments to SPCBs are not a substantial environmental question nor a dispute, and thus the NGT's directions are void.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that directed State Governments to reconsider the appointments of chairpersons and members of State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and to lay down guidelines for such appointments. The Court held that under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the NGT can only entertain cases involving a substantial environmental question that arises in a dispute with a claimant seeking relief under Section 15, which the appointments did not satisfy. Consequently, the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction and its directions were set aside. While the Court declined to prescribe specific recruitment rules, it directed all State Executives to frame appropriate guidelines within six months to ensure that SPCBs are staffed by qualified professionals. The Court also noted that challenges to individual appointments can be pursued through writ petitions such as quo warranto in the appropriate High Courts.

Issues considered

The NGT's jurisdiction to direct State Governments to reconsider appointments to SPCBs under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Whether the appointment of chairpersons and members of SPCBs constitutes a 'substantial question relating to environment' and a 'dispute' within the NGT's jurisdiction.
Whether relief under Section 15 of the NGT Act can be granted in matters concerning SPCB appointments.
The appropriate forum for challenging the qualifications of SPCB appointees.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981s. 10, s. 5(2)
Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 48A, s. Article 51A(g)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 14, s. 15, s. 2(m)
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991s. 6
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 4(2), s. 8

Subjects

National Green TribunalState Pollution Control Boardjurisdictionenvironmental lawappointment guidelinessubstantial questiondisputequo warrantogood governancesustainable developmentpublic trustintergenerational equity

Judgment

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 956

A TECH! TAGI TARA
v.
RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1359 of2017)
B SEPTEMBER22, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - ss.2(m), 14 and 15 -
Challenge to the constitution of State Pollution Control Boards
(SPCBs) before National Green Tribunal - NGT while observing
c that membe1:s appointed in .SPCBs of various States lacked expertise/
qualifications as suggested by Central Govt., issued directions to
State Governments to reconsider the appointments already made
and also laid guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs - Proprie(v
of - Held: NGT exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the State
D Governments to reconsider the appointme/1/s and in laying down
guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs - For NGT to exercise its
jurisdiction, there must be a substantial question relating to the
environment and that question must arise in a dispute - There must
be a clainiant raising that dispute which dispute is capable of
settlement by NGT by grant of some relief uls.15 - However,
E
appointment of the Chairperson and members of SPCBs can neither
be classified as a substantial question relating to the environment
nor can it be a 'dispute' as such or even for the purpose of the
· 2010 Act -Such appointments can be disputes for constitutional
courts to resolve through a writ of quo warranto -Directions issued
F by NGT set aside as being without jurisdiction - Howeve1; in view
of the fact that many disconcerting jl1cts have come out with regard
to appointments/nominations made to SPCBs, directions issued to
executive in all the States to frame guidelines/recruitment mies within
six months and ensure that suitable professionals and experts are
appointed to the SPCBs - Further, it is leji open to public spirited
G
individuals to move appropriate High Court for issuance of a writ
of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or
constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a
member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such - Constitution
of India -Arts. 21, 48A, 5JA(g) - Water (Prevention and Control of
H
956
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 957

Pollution) Act, 1974 - s. 4(2). 8 - Air (Prevention and Control of A
Pol/11tion) Act, 1981 - s.5(2), 10.
Environment - State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)
constituted u/ss. 4(2) ~[Water Act and 5(2) ofAir Act -Appointments
to - importance of deliberative process - Discussed - Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s. 4(2), 8-Air B
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - s.5(2).
Environment - Preservation and protection of - Duty of -
Discussed.
Words and Phrases - "Dispute" - Meaning of, in the context
of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Explained. C
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The protection and preservation of the
environment is extremely vital and unless this responsibility is
taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments and D
the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), there will be adverse
consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable
development, public trust and intergenerational equity arc not
mere catch words, but arc concepts of great importance in
environmental jurisprudence. Perhaps appreciating and
anticipating this, Article 48A was introduced in the Constitution E
of India. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution indicates the
fundamental duties of every citizen of the country, one of them
being to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures. Apart from the natural law obligation to protect F
and preserve the environment, there is also a constitutional
obligation to do so. Article 21 of the Constitution has been given
a very wide amplitude by several decisions of this Court, including
on issues concerning the environment. [Para 2) [964-D-G]
1.2 One of the principal attributes of good governance is
G
the establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally
competent persons and the strengthening of such institutions so
that the duties and responsibilities conferred on them are
performed with dedication and sincerity in public interest. This
is applicable not only to administrative bodies but more so to
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A statutory authorities - more so, because statutory authorities are
the creation of a law made by a competent legislature,
representing the will of the people. State Pollution Control Boards
(or SPCBs) constituted under the provisions of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 fall in this
B
category but many of them possess only a few or sometimes none
of the above attributes of good governance and again a few or
none of them arc adequately empowered. This is a serious
problem haunting the SPCBs for at least two decades (if not more).
[Paras 3, 4] [965-D-E]
c 2.1 On a combined reading of Sections 2(m), 14 and 15 of
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, it is clear to that for
exercise of jurisdiction by NGT there must be a substantial
question relating to the environment and that question must arise
in a dispute- it should not be an academic question. There must
D 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 connected therewith. The appointment
of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs cannot be classified
E in any circumstance as a substantial question relating to the
environment. At best it could be a substantial question relating
to their appointment. Moreover, their appointment is not a
dispute as normally understood. [Paras 17, 18] (979-D-E;
979-F-G]
F 2.2 In the context of the 2010 Act, a dispute would be the
assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by contrary claims
on the other side. In other words, the dispute must be one of
substance and not of form. The appointments concerned in the
present case arc not 'disputes' as such or even disputes for the
G purposes of the 2010 Act- they could be disputes for a
constitutional court to resolve through a writ of quo warranto,
but certainly not for the NGT to venture into. The failure of the
State Government to appoint professional and experienced
persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint
any person at all might incidentally result in an ineffective
H
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 959

implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this cannot A
be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT would
have jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory obligation
over which, in the present context and not universally, only a
constitutional court would have jurisdiction and not a statutory
body like the NG'I'. The anxiety of the NGT to preserve and B
protect the environment as a part of its statutory functions, is
understood but these concepts cannot be extended to the extent
of enabling the NGT to consider who should be appointed as a
Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or who should not be so
appointed. Additionally, no relief as postulated by Section 15 of
the Act could be granted to a claimant, assuming that a substantial C
question relating to the environment does arise and that a dispute
does exist. [Paras 19, 20] [980-C-GJ
2.3 While it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT and also
beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to lay down specific
rules and guidelines for recruitment of the Chairperson and D
members of the SPCBs, there should be considerable
deliberation before an appointment is made and only the best
should be appointed to the SPCB. It is necessary in this regard
for the Executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for the
appointment of such persons who would add lustre and value to
the SPCB. The entire scheme of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) and E
Article 21 of the Constitution, including the principles that have
been accepted and adopted internationally as well as by this Court
such as the principles of sustainable development, public trust
and intergenerational equity arc a clear indication that in matters
relating to the protection and preservation of the environment F
(through the appointment of officials to the SPCBs) the Central
Government as well as the State Governments have to walk the
extra milc.[Paras 22, 23] [981-E-F, HJ
3~ Some States have implemented the order of the NGT
and removed some members while others have approached G
Supreme Court and obtained an interim stay order. Those officials
who were removed pursuant to the order of the NGT (including
the appellant Techi Tagi Tara) have an independent cause of action
and it is left open to them to challenge their removal in appropriate
and independent proceedings. This is an issue between the
removed official and the State Government- the removal is not a H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A public interest issue and the situation cannot be reversed.
[Para 21) (981-B-C]
Guidelines by various Committees for the appointment of the
Chairperson and members of the SPCBs -
3.1 The Bhattacharya Committee (1984) proposed that the
B structural organization of SPCBs should consist of technical
services, scientific services, planning, legal services,
administrative services, accounts, training cell and research and
development. The Committee, inter-alia, called for (a)
discouraging the flow of deputationists to the Boards, (b)
c upgrading regional laboratories, (c) providing each Board with at
least one mobile laboratory, (d) creating a centralized training
institute, (e) providing, on priority, funds to establish air control
activity, and (f) bestowing the power to make posts at least up to
the rank of environmental engineers/scientists with the Boards.
[Para 26] [983-D-F]
D
3.2 Similarly, the Belliappa Committee (1990) recommended
(a) introducing elaborate monitoring, reporting and J>rganizational
systems at the national level along with four regional centres and
one training cell in each Board, (b) effecting suitable changes in
the Boards recruitment policy to enable them induct persons with
E suitable academic qualifications, and (c) ensuring that the
Chairman and Member-Secretary arc appointed for a minimum
of three years. [Para 27] [983-G; 984-A]
3.3 The Administrative Staff College of India (1994)
recommended, inter alia, that (a) the SPCBs be reoriented for
F implementing the instrument mix of legislation and regulation,
fiscal incentives, voluntary agreements, information campaigns
and educational programmes, (b) an Annual Environmental Quality
Report be prepared by every SPCB for the concerned State, (c)
an inventory of discharges and effluents disaggregated to the
G district level be prepared, (d) a research cell be formed in each
SPCB and a network be established with the proposed clean
technology centre and (f) model environmental impact
assessments be prepared for major categories of industries.
[Para 28) [984-B-C]

H
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 961

3.4 The Menon Committee made recommendations that A
are a part of the communication dated 16th August, 2005 of the
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). It was also
recommended that (a) in general, State Governments should not
interfere with recruitment policies of the SPCBs, especially where
the Boards arc making efforts to equip their institutions with B
more and better trained engineering and scientific staff, (b) the
statutory independence and functional autonomy given to the
SPCBs should be protected and the Boards should be kept free
from political interference. The Boards should be enabled to make
independent decisions in this regard and (c) the Chairperson of
the SPCB should be a full-time appointee for a period of five C
years and the Member-Secretary of the SPCB should also be
appointed for a period of five years. [Para 29) (984-D-E]
4. Notwithstanding all these suggestions, recommendations
and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by persons
who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or D
professional experience to address the issues for which the
SPCBs were established by law. The concern really is not one of
a lack of professional expertise - there is plenty of it available in
the country - but the lack of dedication and willingness to take
advantage of the resources available and instead benefit someone
close to the powers that be. With this couldn't-care-less attitude, E
the environment and public trust arc the immediate casualties.
It would be appropriate that the Executive in all the States frame
appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months,
considering the institutional requirements of the SPCBs and the
law laid down by statute, by Supreme Court and as per the reports F
of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable
professionals and experts arc appointed to the SPCBs. Further,
it is left open to public spirited individuals to move the appropriate
High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if any person
who docs not meet the statutory or constitutional requirements
is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is G
presently continuing as such. [Paras 31-33] [984-H; 985-A-B;
986-F-G; 987-A]
Binay Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand (2002) 50
BLJR 2223 - approved.
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Prabhakar v. Joint Directo1; Sericulture Department
(2015) 15 SCC I : (2015] 9 SCR 890; State of Punjab
v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 sec 1 : (2013] 5 SCR 18;
Ashok Kumar fodav v. State of Hm:vana (1985) 4 SCC
417 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657; In Rio Dr. Ram Ashray
Yadav (2000) 4 SCC 309 : [2000] 2 SCR 688 - relied
B
on.
State of UP. v. Jeet S. Bisht. (2007) 6 SCC 586 : [2007]
7 SCR 705 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
c (2002) 50 BLJR 2223 approved Paras
[20151 9 SCR 890 relied on Para 18
[2013] 5 SCR 18 relied on Para 23

D· (1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657 relied on Para 25
(2000] 2 SCR 688 relied on Para 25
(2007] 7 SCR 705 referred to Para 32
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1359
E of2017.
From the impugned final Order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original
Application No.318/20 I 3
WITH
F
CivilAppealNo. 1561 of2017
Civil Appeal No. 4917of2017
Civil Appeal No. 4936of2017
G. Ci vii Appeal No. 5735 of2017
Civil Appeal No. 1360of2017
Civil Appeal No. 2481 of2017
Civil Appeal No. 526 of2017
H Civil Appeal Nos. 8377-8378 of2017
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 963

Civil Appeal No. 9498 of2017 A
CivilAppealNo.10471 of2017
Civil Appeal Nos. 10472-10473 of2017.
P.S. Narasimha, ASG, A. Mariarputham, Adv. Gen., Ranji Thomas,
Subramonium Prasad, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Y.N. Raghupathy, Nishant B
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms.Deepa Kulkarni, Amit Agarwal, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, M.R. Shamshad, Tushar Mehta, Dhruv Pali, Himanshu
Pal, Ms.Aruna Mathru, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
Amit Arora Ms.Simran 1eet (for Mis ArputhumAruna and Co.), Guntur
Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms.Monika,
Sukrit R. Kapoor, S.S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Vaibhav C
Prakash, Ms.Ruchi Kohli, R. Rakesh Sharma, K.V. Vijayakumar,
Abhishek, P.S. Narasimha, P. Yenkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi (for
Mis Venkat Palwai Law Associates), Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Naresh
Kumar Gaur, Ashok Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
A.S. Nadkarni, ASG, D.K. Singh, AAG, Yivek Gupta, Mukesh D
Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms.
Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Atul Jha, Sandeep
Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ms.Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande,
Ms.Mona Sinha, Arjun Garg, Ranjan Mukherjee, P.V. Yogeswaran, M.
K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, E
Z.H. Isaac Raiding, Som Raj Choudhary, Raja Chattejee, Chanchal Kumar
Ganguli, Piyush Sachdev, Ms. Runa Bhuyan, Shubham Bhalla, Ritesh
Khatri, Gaurang Kanth, Chandan Kumar, Ms.Eshita Baruah, K.V.
Jagdishvaran, Ms. G Indira, V.G Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
Manu Sundaram, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jasal Wahi, Ms.Mamta
Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ms. Puja Singh, D.K. Singh, Anuvrat F
Sharma, Koma! Mundhra, Saurabh Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Thislhbatch of appeals is directed
against the judgment and order dated 24 August, 2016 passed by the G
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the
NGT') in Original Application No. 318 of 2013. 1 On a reading of the
judgment and order passed by the NGT, it is quite clear that the Tribunal
was perturbed and anguished that some persons appointed to the State
'Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State ofUttarakhand and others
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Pollution Control Boards (for short 'SPCBs') did not have, according to
the NGT, the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members or
chairpersons of such high powered and specialized statutory bodies and
therefore did not deserve their appointment or nomination. While we
fully commiserate with the NGT and share the pain and anguish, we are
of the view that the Tribunal has, at law, exceeded its jurisdiction in
B
directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments and in
laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs, however well-
mcaning they might be. Therefore, we set aside the decision of the NGT,
but note that a large number of disconcerting facts have been brought
out in the judgment which need serious consideration by those in authority,
c particularly the State Governments that make appointments or
nominations to the SPCBs. Such appointments should not be made
casually or without due application ofmind considering the duties, functions
and responsibilities of the SPCBs.
2. Why is it important to be more than careful in making such
D appointments? There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation
of the environment is extremely vital for all of us and unless this
responsibility is taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments
and the SPCBs, we arc inviting trouble that will have adverse
consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable development,
public trust and intergenerational equity arc not mere catch words, but
E are concepts of great importance in environmental j urisprudcnce. Perhaps
appreciating and anticipating this, Article 48A was introduced in the
Constitution and this Article reads as follows:
"Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wild life - The State shall endeavour
F to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country."
Similarly Article 5 IA (g) of the Constitution indicates the fundamental
duties of every citizen of the country, one of them being to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
G life, and to have compassion for living creatures. 2 It is quite clear that
2 51 A. Fundamental dutics.-lt shall be the duty of every citizen of India-

(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
(h) to (k) xxx xxx xxx
H
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 965
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)

apart from the natural law obligation to protect and preserve the A
environment, there is also a constitutional obligation to do so.
Unfortunately, despite this, our society has been witnessing over the last
few decades, to repeated onslaughts against the environment, sometimes
in the name of development and sometimes because our society just
does not seem to care. In this context we may also mention Article 21
B
of the Constitution which has been given a very wide amplitude by several
decisions of this Court, including on issues concerning the environment.
The judgment of the NGT draws attention to some of these aspects but
essentially points to the 'who-cares' attitude adopted by several State
Governments. It is this attitude that compelled a public spirited
environmentally conscious individual to challenge the composition of the C
SPCB in the State of Uttarakhand and consequently the necessity of
being extra careful in making appointments to the SPCB.

3. One of the principal attributes of good governance is the
·establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally competent
persons and the strengthening of such institutions so that the duties and D
responsibilities conferred on them are performed with dedication and
sincerity in public interest. This is applicable not only to administrative
bodies but more so to statutory authorities - more so, because statutory
authorities are the creation of a law made by a competent legislature,
representing the will of the people.
E
4. State Pollution Control Boards (or SPCBs) constituted under
the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and theAir (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 3 fall in
this category but many of them possess only a few or sometimes none
of the above attributes of good governance and again a few or none of F
them are adequately empowered. This is a serious problem haunting the
SPCBs for at least two decades (if not more).

5. The composition of the SPCB is provided for in Section 4(2) of
the Water Act and this reads as follows (Section 5(2) of the Air Act is
similar): G
"4(2) A State Board shall consist of the following members,
namely:-

3
Henceforth the Water Act and the Air Act
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A (a) a chairman, being a person having special knowledge or
practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental
protection or a person having knowledge and experience in
administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be
nominated by the State Government:
B . Provided that the chairman may be either whole-time or part-
time as the State Government may think fit;
(b) such number of officials, not exceeding five, to be nominated
by the State Government to represent that Government;
( c) such number of persons, not exceeding five, to be nominated
C by the State Government from amongst the members of the local
authorities functioning within the State;

( d) such number of non-officials, not exceeding three, to be
nominated by the State Government to represent the interests of
agriculture, fishery or industry or trade or any other interest which,
D in the opinion of the State Government, ought to be represented;

( e) two persons to represent the companies or corporations
owned, controlled or managed by the State Government, to be
nominated by that Government;

E · (t) A full-time member-secretary, possessing qualifications,
knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or
management aspects of pollution control, to be appointed by the
State Government."
6. One of the earliest communications on our record encouraging
F professionalism in the SPCBs with a view to empowering them is a
letter of 26th September, 1997 addressed by the Secretary in the Ministry
of Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the Government of India to the
Chief Secretary of every State highlighting the importance of the SPCBs,
the fact that their activities are science and technology based and the
G necessity of taking relevant factors into consideration while making
appointments to the SPCBs. The letter reads as follows:
"Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government oflndia

H
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 967
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

September 26, 1997 A
D.0. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/97
Dear
The State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees
in Union Territories have been assigned an important role for
prevention and control of pollution from different sources. In B
recent years, additional responsibilities have been assigned to them
for enforcement of various statutes. Hence, these organizations
need to be suitably strengthened so that they can cope up with the
tasks. In fact, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has also had occasion
to observe on the unsatisfactory performance of State Boards in c
discharging their functions.
The activities of the Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control
Committees are essentially science and technology based. The
Chairman and Member Secretaries are the key functionaries of
the Boards/Committees who are expected to have requisites D
professional knowledge and experience for providing effective
leadership to their organizations. Under the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the specific requirements for
appointment to these posts have been laid down.
However, in some State Boards/Committees, the appointments to E
these posts are made without due consideration to such
requirements as envisaged under the Acts. Also, another major
problem being faced by these organizations is on account of
frequent changes of Chairmen and Member Secretaries. I request·
you to kindly ensure that appropriate persons arc appointed for F
these key positions and they are not frequently changed. Where
the incumbents do not have the prescribed criteria they should be
replnced.
It is requested that this issue may kindly receive your personal
attention on a top priority basis.
G
With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Vishwanath Anand)"
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A 7. More importantly and perhaps keeping the diverse nature of
activities of the SPCBs in mind, a conference was held in Coimbatore
on 29th and 30th January, 2001 of the Ministers of Environment and
Forests of the State Governments. The conference recommended, inter
alia, the induction of academicians, professionals, experts and
B technologists for the effective functioning of the SPCBs. As a follow-up
to the recommendations, a letter was addressed by the Secretary in the
MoEF to the Chief Secretary of every State on 3rd July, 2001. This
letter reads as follows:
"P.V. Jayakrishnan
Secretary
C D.O. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/2001
July3,2001
Dear
In the National Conference of Ministries of Environment
D and Forests held at Coimbatore on January 29-30, 2001, several
important recommendations were made regarding effective
functioning of the State Pollution Control Boards/ Committees.
These include the following:
(i) Induction of academicians, legal professionals, health
E experts and technologists as members of the Boards/
Committees.
(ii) Appointment of multi-disciplinary staff
(iii) Ban on recruitment shall be relaxed for the posts
of scientists and engineers in the Pollution Control Boards/
F
Committees.
(iv) Training ofpersonnel, for which programme shall be drawn
up by the Central Pollution Control Board.
(v) Streamlining of Consent/ Authorization procedures.
G (vi) Invcntorization of polluting sources and pollution load.
(vii) Formulation of Annual Action Plans.
(viii) Publication ofannnal State Environment Report.
(ix) Strengthening and upgrading of water and air quality
H monitoring and laboratory facilities.

..
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 969
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

We had taken up the matter with the respective State Pollution A
Control Boards/Committees. Since most of the action points
require intervention of the State Governments, I request you kindly
to take necessary action for implementation of the
recommendations.
I look forward to your response at the earliest. B
With regards.
Yours Sincerely,
Sd/-
(P.V. Jayakrishnan) C
To Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs"
8. These communications seem to have had little or no impact at
least in one instance as is evident from a reading of a decision of the
Jharkhand High Coui1 dated 15th May, 2002 in Bi11ay Kumar Sinha v.
D
State of Jlturkhamf concerning the Chairperson of the SPCB of that
State. The High Court was compelled to make the following scathing
and unfortunate observations:
"4. On 4th April 2002, when the Chairman appeared before us
and we stmtcd talking to him in order to elicit his views and opinion
on the aforesaid questions, what we found has been aptly and E
clearly recorded in our order of that day. The extracts read thus:-
"Shri Thakur Bal Mukund Nath Shahdeo, Chairman, State Pollution
Control Board has appeared before us today in person. During
the course of our conversation with him, we found (to our total
horror, surprise, dismay and amazement) that he does not know F
anything at all about any aspect relating to pollution, or the control
of pollution. In course ofour extensive conversation with him, we
found that the only academic qualification that he boasts of is
'matriculation'. He has no other academic or technical qualification
whatsoever. When, by referring to Section 5(2)(a) of the Air
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, we asked him 0
whether he has any special knowledge or any practical experience
in respect of any matter relating to the environmental pollution,
his answer was in the negative. We must record that during the
'(2002) 50 BLJR 2223
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A course of our conversation with Sri Shahdeo, we were constantly
helped and assisted by Mr. Poddar, learned Addi. Advocate
General. We actually impressed upon Mr. Poddar the need of
assisting Sri Shahdeo in answering our questions. Mr. Poddar very
kindly lent his helping hand to us. What emerged was that Mr.
Shahdeo has neither any general or special knowledge, nor any
B
academic qualification, nor any experience whatsoever that may
have anything to do with any matter or any aspect relating to the
pollution, air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, or any other
pollution of any kind. What to speak of his-having special
knowledge or practical experience, he has neither any knowledge,
c general or special, nor any experience, practical or otherwise with
respect to any matters relating to environmental pollution. We
repeatedly asked him to inform us about one single such fact by
which he could lay his claim to hold this office. He failed to inform
us of even a single fact which could qualify him to hold this office.
His only claim was that he is a politico-social worker. We asked
D
him also as to how he came to be appointed on this post. He says
that he made an application to Mrs. Neelam Nath, Secretary,
Forests, we asked him whether such an application was invited
from him. He says that the application was invited from him. We
asked him whether invitation was extended to him personally by
E Mrs. Neelam Nath or did it appear in any advertisement. He says
that he, on his own, gave such an application and that it was neither
invited personally from him nor through any advertisement. Prima
facic, it appears to us that a person who does not have the requisite
qualification, experience, or knowledge has been appointed on
the post of Chairman, Pollution Control Board. Before we proceed
F any further, we would like Mr. Poddar, learnedA.A.G. to produce
before us the original records of the Govt. relating to the
appointment of Mr. Shahdeo."
5. It was from this point onwards that a case arose within a case.
Both the issues started being dealt with simultaneously by us,
G namely, the issue relating to Sundera Mineral & Chemical Industry
and the propriety, legality and validity of the appointment of Mr.
Shahdeo."
A little later in the judgment it was held:

H
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 971
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

"41. Looked at from the aforesaid legal perspective and in view A
of our clear findings that Shri Shahdeo did not possess the
qualifications required of the Chairman, State Pollution Control
Board, we have no hesitation, but to hold that it would be a violation
of the law to allow him to continue as the Chairman of the State
Board. We accordingly order and declare that the appointment of B
Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, was not legal and valid
and hence improperly made and therefore, on these grounds we
order and direct that he cannot continue to function as such. By
issuance of a writ of quo-warranto, therefore, the appointment of
Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, is quashed and set aside.
Shri Shahdeo shall forthwith and with immediate effect cease to C
hold the office of Chairman, State Board. The post of Chairman,
State Board is hereby declared to be vacant, and with immediate
effect."
9. Notwithstanding the above decision, communications and orders,
the State Governments continued to display disinterest in the matter of D
professional appointments to the SPCBs. This led to another
communication from the MoEF on 16th August, 2005 (which still did not
have the desired effect) and this communication reads as follows:
"Supreme Court Matter
Most Immediate E
By Speed Post
No. 23-8/2004-HSMD (Vol.II)
Government oflndia
Ministry of Environment & Forests
(Supreme Court Monitoring Committee)
F
Room No, 927, Paryavaran Bhawan ·
C.G.0. Complex, Lodhi Road
NewDelhi-110003 108
Dated 16th August, 2005
~ G
·The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs
(As per the list enclosed)
Sub: Constitution of the State Pollution Control Board/Pollution
Control Committees (SPCBs PCCs) - regarding
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Dear Sir,
The Supreme Court by its order dated 14-10-2003 in the Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995 set up a Monitoring Committee to
ensure time-bound implementation of various directions given in
the said order. 5 The committee has been visiting several States to
B monitor the status of implementation of these directions.
During its interaction with various pollution control officials, the
Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) has noticed that
the State Pollution Control Board (SPCBs), Pollution Control
Committee (PCCs) of UTs were not constituted in accordance
c with the provisions given in the Water Act, 1994 and the Air Act,
1981.
Chairperson of the Board :-
3. The statutory provisions require that Chairpersons appointed
shall be persons having "special knowledge or practical experience
D in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a
person having knowledge and experience in administering
institutions dealing with the matter aforesaid"
4. The SCMC has found that in the several cases, the Chief
Secretaries, Environment Secretaries, politicians, MLAs, literary
E persons and non-technical persons have been appointed as
Chairperson of SPCBs/PCCs.
5. The MGK Menon Committee had recommended in its report
that "The Chairman of the Pollution Control Boards & Committees
should be individuals with a sense of vision and a feeling for the
F future. They must have an understanding of the complexity of
modem science and technology since they will be dealing with
highly technical issue. They must have an understanding oflaw.
The chairperson would have to be fully involved in the task of
environment construction and planning appointment of the
Chairperson of the Board should be on full time basis.
G
Member Secretary of the Board:-
6. Similarly, in respect of the post of Member Secretary the
statutory provisions (Water Act) require that he be full-time,

'Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India
H
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 973
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific, A
engineering or management aspects of pollution control.
7. In relation to appointment of Member Secretaries, the Menon
Committee has recommended that: '"The incumbent should possess
a post-graduate degree in science, engineering or technology, and
have adequate experience of working in the area of environment B
protection".
8. The SCMC has found that in several States, persons from IFS
or from the PWD especially from the PHE departments, are either
being appointed or deputed to the post of Member Secretary without
the necessary statutory qualifications. c
Members:-
9. No effort is being made to appoint persons with adequate
scientific, technical or legal background from the environmental
field as members of the Board. Board members are increasingly D
being appointed for political purposes. This is leading to ineffective
and inefficient functioning ofSPCBs/PCCs.
l 0. Though the Boards are to function as statutory bodies under
the Air Act, 1981, no specialists in air pollution (as required by the
Air Act, 1981) are being appointed as members. This is a serious
E
lacuna in constitution of the Boards.
11. During its visits to various States to monitor implementation of
the order dated 14. l 0.2003, the SCMC has observed that the order
of the Supreme Court being efficiently carried out in States that
have competent Chairperson or Member Secretaries. In other
F
States, due to lack of proper attention at the highest level,
implementation is found to be tardy and without much progress.
12. The SCMC discussed these issues at its meeting held on 28-
03-2005 came to the firm conclusion that only technically qualified
professionals should be appointed to the critical positions of
Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the Pollution G
Control Boards so that their functioning can be strengthened as
required in terms of paragraph - 41.l of the Supreme Court's
order dated 14.10.2003.

H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A 13. The committee is also of the view that recommendations of
the MGK Menon Committee be fully respected and the
Chairperson should be appointed on full-time basis. Without the
officers it is not possible for any Board to function effectively in
view of the numerous laws and statutes that demand efficient
and effective actions from State Pollution Control Boards.
B
14. We draw your kind attention to several reports on strengthening
of State Pollution Control Boards. These include:
1) The Bhattacharia Committee, 1984
2) The Belliappa Committee, 1990
c
3) The ASCI Study, 1994
4) Study of the Sub Group, 1994
15. All these studies were considered during the Evaluation Study
on "Function of the Pollution Control Board" prepared by the
D Programme Evaluation Organization of the Planning Commission.
16. The Planning Commission report concluded: "Considering the
interesting technicalities involved in the functions to be performed
by these Boards, it is essential that technical persons possessing
scientific knowledge about matters relating to pollution and pollution
E control hold the upper hand''.
17. The conference of Ministers of Environment that took place
in Coimbatore also reiterated at the highest political level, the
decision that the SPCBs should be headed and staffed by
technically competent professionals (and not by journalists or
F politicians or administrative officers).
18. The composition of the Boards is.therefore under the scrutiny
of the SCMC and no further appointment of Chairpersons or
Member Secretaries should be carried our which do not meet the
norms given in the statute and elucidated by the Menon Committee.
G 19. In view of the above, you arc requested to inform this monitoring
Committee regarding the qualifications of the Chairperson, Member
Secretary and Members of the Pollution Control Board, Pollution
Control Committee in your State/ Union Territory. Based on the
information, the committee will examine whether the persons
H
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 975
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)

nominated to these positions meet the statutory norms and the A
requirements as indicated in the MGK Menon Committee Report
and the Order of the Supreme Court dated 14. l 0.2003 and further
necessary action will be taken in the matter.
20. This matter may kindly be given the highest consideration and
a reply in this regard may be provided to the undersigned within 4 B
weeks so that the same will be considered in the next SCMC
meeting. It will be highly appreciated, if a copy of the information
may also be sent through email.
Yours faithfully
Sci/- C
(Dr. G. Thyagarajan)
Chairman,
Supreme Court Monitoring Committee
Telefax: 011-24361410 D
Email: drgarajan@yahoo.co.in"
10. There are a few other communications on the same subject
but it is not necessary to detail their contents. All that need be said is
that the Central Government, time and again, requested the State E
Governments to appoint persons who could add value and stature to the
SPCBs by their very presence and then utilize their expertise in preserving
and protecting the environment, including air and water.
l 1. As far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, it has come
on record that no rules (let alone recruitment rules) have been framed F
by the State under the Water Act and the Air Act even though the State
was formed several years ago. Rules framed by the State of Uttar
Pradesh notified in 1984 have been adopted by Uttarakhand but there
has apparently been no fresh application of mind to these Rules or even
consideration of the possibly somewhat different conditions in
Uttarakhand. There seems to be a mechanical and bodily lifting of the G
Uttar Pradesh Rules. Apart from the above, it has also come on record
that meetings of the SPCB are required to be held once in three months
but as far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, only 15 meetings
were held during the period from 200 l (when the Board was constituted)
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A over the next 12 years. There is therefore nonchalance shown by
Uttarakhand to the rule making power and the provisions of Section 8 of
the Water Act and Section 10 of the Air Act 6 relating to holding meetings
of the SPCB.
12. To make matter worse, despite this Court passing an order on
B 8th January, 2008 (in lANo.4/2007 in SLP (Civil) No.6023/2006) directing
the State of Uttarakhand and the SPCB to consider the desirability of
making rules laying down essential qualifications and experience and
other relevant factors for appointment of members in the SPCB7, we
are told that unfortunately, such rules have not been made and the
c impugned order under appeal indicates that the matter has remained
under consideration ofthe State Government since 2006.
13. Keeping all these facts and the recalcitrance of the State
Governments in mind, the NGT examined the expertise and qualifications
of members of the SPCB of almost all States and prima facie found
D that about ten States and one Union Territory had members in the SPCB
who lacked the qualifications suggested by the Central Government.

•section 8 of the Water Act: 8. Meetings ofBoard.-ABoard shall meet at least once
in every three months and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the
transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed:

E Provided that if, in the opinion of the chairman, any business of an urgent nature is to
be transacted, he may convene a meeting of the Board at such time as he thinks fit for
the aforesaid purpose.
Section IO of the Air Act: 10. Meetings of Board.-( I) For the purposes of this Act,
a Board shall meet at least once in every three months and shall observe such rules of
procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed:
Provided that if, in the opinion of the Chairman, any business of an urgent nature is to
F be transacted, he may convene a meeting of the Board at such time as he thinks fit for
the aforesaid purpose.
(2) Copies of the minutes of the meetings under sub-section (I) shall be forwarded to
the Central Board and to the State Government concerned.
7
"I.A. No. 4/2007 be treated as an original petition to be listed along with SLP (C) No.
6023/2006. Learned counsel for the State ofUttaranchal and Uttarakhand Environment
G Protection and Pollution Control Board shall find out the desirability of having Rules
governing the essential qualifications and experience and such relevant factors for the
appointment of various officials in the Board. They shall also indicate their stand as
regards certain NOCs stated to have been issued to pharmacentical manufacturers.
Call after eight weeks."
IA No.4/2007 was converted to W.P. (Civil) No.85/2008 which was listed along with
H SLP (Civil) No.6023/2006
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 977
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

14. At this stage, it must be mentioned that apart from the Central A
Government, there are several authorities that have applied their mind to
the issue of appointment of members of the SPCBs. These include
Expert Committees such as the Bhattacharya Committee of 1984, the
Belliappa Committee of 1990, the Administrative Staff College oflndia
Study of 1994 and a Committee chaired by Prof. M.G.K. Menon. B
Notwithstanding this, the response of the State Governments in appointing
professionals and experts to the SPCBs has been remarkably casual. It
is this cha/ta hai attitude that led the NOT to direct the State Governments
to consider examining the appointment of the Chairperson and members
in the SPCBs and determining whether their appointment deserves
continuation or cancellation. Thereafter the NOT gave several guidelines C
that ought to be followed in making appointments to the SPCBs.
15. The objection of the appellants is to: (i) the exercise of
jurisdiction by the NOT in directing the State Governments to reconsider
the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs; and (ii)
laying down guidelines for appointment of the Chairperson and members D
of the SPCBs.
16. As regard the first grievance, it is contended that the
appointment or removal of members of the SPCBs docs not lie within
the statutory jurisdiction of the NOT. Our attention has been drawn to
some provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short 'the E
Act'). The jurisdiction of the NOT is circumscribed by Section 14 of the
Act which reads as follows:
"14. Tribunal to settle disputes.-(!) The Tribunal shall have
the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right F
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 ( l) and settle such disputes and pass
order thereon. G
(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:
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is 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."
This provision cannot be read in isolation but must be read in conjunction
B · with Section 15 of the Act which relates to relief, compensation and
restitution as being broadly the directions that can be issued by the NGT.
Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution.-
( l) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,-
c
(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other
environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in
the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any
hazardous substance);

D (b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as
the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and compensation and restitution ofpropertynnd
environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) ofsub-seetion
E ( l) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 ofl991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or
restitution of property or environment under this section shall be
entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of
F five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation
or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, ifit is 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
G exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health,
property and environment, divide the compensation or relief
payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to
provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution
H of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 979
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act A
shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as
the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other
court or authority."
Finally, it is important to refer to Section 2(m) of the Act which reads:
"(m) "substantial question relating to environment" shall include B
an instance whcre,-
(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental
obligation by a person by which,-
(A) the community at large other than an individual or group
of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the c
environmental consequences; or
(B) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is
substantial; or
(C) the damage to public health is broadly measurable;
(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity D
or a point source of pollution;"
17. On a combined reading of all these provisions, it is clear to us
that there must be a substantial question relating to the 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 E
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 connected therewith.
18. The appointment of the Chairperson and members of the F
SPCBs cannot be classified in any circumstance as a substantial question
relating to the environment. At best it could be a substantial question
relating to their appointment. Moreever, their appointment is not a dispute
as one would normally understand it. In Prabhakar v. Joint Director,
Seric11/111re Depart111e11t8 the following 'definition' of dispute was noted
in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Report: 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:
'<201s) 15 sec 1
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 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 Dictiona1y, 5th Edn., p. 424 defines "dispute"
as under:
B "Di:.pute.-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 oflitigation;
the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which issue is
joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses
c examined."
19. As far as we are concerned, in the context of the Act, a
dispute would be the assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by
contrary claims on the other side. In other words, the dispute must be
one of substance and not of form and it appears to us that the
D appointments that we are concerned with are not 'disputes' as such or
even disputes for the purposes of the Act - they could be disputes for a
constitutional court to resolve through a writ of quo warranto, but
certainly not for the NGT to venture into. The failure of the State
Government to appoint professional and experienced persons to key
positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint any person at all might
E incidentally result in an ineffective implementation of the Water Act and
theAir Act, but this cannot be classified as a primary dispute over which
the NGT would have jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory
obligation over which, in the present context and not universally, only a
constitutional court would have jurisdiction and not a statutory body like
F the NGT. While we appreciate the anxiety of the NGT to preserve and
protect the environment as a part of its statutory functions, we cannot
extend these concepts to the extent of enabling the NGT to consider
who should be appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or
who should not be so appointed. '

G 20. Additionally, no relief as postulated by Section 15 of the Act
could be granted to a claimant, assuming that a substantial question relating
to the environment does arise and that a dispute does exist.
21. It appears to us that the NGT realized its limitations in this
regard and therefore issued a direction to the State Governments to
H reconsider the appointments already been made, but the seminal issue is
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 981
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

really whether the NGT could at all have entertained a· claim of the A
nature that was raised. For reasons given above. the answer must be in
the negative and it would have been more appropriate for the NGT to
have required the claimant to approach a constitutional court for the
relief prayed for in the original application. To this extent therefore, the
direction given by the NGT must be set aside as being without jurisdiction.
B
However, we have been told that some States have implemented the
order of the NGT and removed some members while others have
approached this Court and obtained an interim stay order. Those officials
who were removed pursuant to the order of the NGT (including the
appellant Techi Tagi Tara) have an independent cause of action and we
leave it open to them to challenge their removal in appropriate and c
independent proceedings. This is an issue between the removed official
and the State Government - the removal is not a public interest issue and
we cannot reverse the situation.
22. On the second grievance relating to the issue of guidelines by
the NGT, the meat of the matter concerns the appointment of officials D
who arc experts in their field and arc otherwise professional. This is for
each State Government to consider and decide what is the right thing to
do under the circumstances - should an unqualified or inexperienced
person be appointed or should the SPCB be a representative but expert
body? The Water Act and the Air Act as well as the Constitution give
ample guidance in this regard. We have already adverted to the provisions E
of the Constitution including Article 48A, Article 5 lA(g) and Article 21
of the Constitution. So, the entire scheme of the various provisions of
the Constitution adverted to above, including the principles that have
been accepted and adopted internationally as well as by this Court such
as the principles of sustainable development, public trust and F
intergenerational equity are a clear indication that in matters relating to
the protection and preservation of the environment (through the
appointment of officials to the SPCBs) the Central Government as well
as the State Governments have to walk the extra mile. Unfortunately,
many of the State Governments have not even taken the first step in that
direction - hence the present problem. G

23. While it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT and also beyond
our jurisdiction to lay down specific rules and guidelines for recruitment
of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs, we arc of opinion that
there should be considerable deliberation before an appointment is made
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017112 S.C.R.

A and only the best should be appointed to the SPCB. It is necessary in
this regard for the Executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for
the appointment of such persons who would add lustre and value to the
SPCB. ln this connection we refer to the State ofPunjab v. Sa/ii Sablilok 9
in which it was observed with reference to appointments to the Public
Service Commission that besides express restrictions in a statute or the
B
Constitution. there can be implied restrictions in a statute or the
Constitution and the statutory or constitutional authority cimnot, in breach
of such implied restrictions, exercise its discretionary power. In our
opinion this would be equally applicable to an appointment to a statutory
body such as the SPCB - the State Government does not have unlimited
c discretion or power to appoint anybody that it chooses to do.
24. lt was also held in Slllil Subltlok (supra) that the deliberative
process and institutional requirements arc of considerable importance in
respect of any appointment that is made. In this context, the imperative
of good governance was highlighted and with regard to framing rules or
D issuing guidelines, it was held as follows:
"In the light of the various decisions of this Court adverted to
above, the. administrative and constitutional imperative can be met
only ifthe Government frames guidelines or parameters for the
appointment of the Chairperson and Mch1bers of the Punjab Public
E Service Commission. That it has failed to do so docs not preclude
this Court or any superior court from giving a direction to the
State Government to conduct the necessary exercise within a
speC'ified period. Only because it is left to the State Legislature to
consider the desirability or otherwise of specifying the qualifications
or experience for the appointment of a person to the position of
F Chairperson or Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission,
does not imply that this Court cannot direct the executive to frame
guidelines and set the parameters. This Court can certainly issue
appropriate directions in this regard, and in the light of the
experience gained over the last several decades coupled with the
G views expressed by the Law Commission, the Second
Administrative Reform Commission and the views expressed by
this Court from time to time, it is imperative for good governance
and better administration to issue directions to the exccuti ve to

'(2013)5SCC I
H
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 983
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)

frame appropriate guidelines and parameters based on the A
indicators mentioned by this Court. These guidelines can and
should be binding on the State of Punjab till the State Legislature
exercises its power."
25. In Asltok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana 10 this Cowi
observed that competent, honest, independent persons of outstanding B
ability and high reputation who command the confidence of people and
who would not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous
consideration from discharging their duties should be appointed to Public
Service Commissions. Similarly, in 111 Rio Dr Ram Asliray Yadav 11 it
was held that the credibility ofan institution is fow1ded upon the faith of
the common man in its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded C
and confidence destroyed if it appears that the officials act subjectively
and not objectively or that their actions are suspect. In our opinion,
these conclusions of this Court would equally apply to professional and
expert statutory bodies such as the Central Pollution Control Board and
the State Pollution Control Boards. D
26. Additionally, various committees have given sufficient
guidelines for the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the
SPCBs. The Bhattacharya Committee (1984) proposed that the
structural organization of SPCBs should consist of technical services,
scientific services, planning, legal services, administrative services, E
accounts, training cell and research and development. The Committee,
inter-alia, called for (a) discouraging the flow of deputationists to the
Boards, (b) upgrading regional laboratories, (c) providing each Board
with at least one mobile laboratory, (d) creating a centralized training
institute, (e) providing, on priority, funds to establish air control activity,
and (f) bestowing the power to make posts at least up to the rank of F
environmental engineers/scientists with the Boards. 12
27. Similarly, the Belliappa Committee ( 1990) recommended
(a) introducing elaborate monitoring, reporting and organizational systems
at the national level along with four regional centres and one training cell
in each Board, (b) effecting suitable changes in the Boards recruitment G
"< 1985) 4 sec 417
11
(2000) 4 sec 309
"Final Report prepared by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in 2005 on
Institutional Capacity Building highlights the recommendations made by the
Bhattacharya Committee, the Belliappa Committee and the ASCI Study
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A policy to enable them induct persons with suitable academic qualifications,
and (c) ensuring that the Chairman and Member-Secretary are appointed
for a minimum of three years.
28. The Administrative Staff College of India (1994)
recommended, inter afia, that (a) the SPCBs be reoriented for
B implementing the instrument mix of legislation and regulation, fiscal
incentives, voluntaiy agreements, information campaigns and educational
programmes (b) an Annual Environmental Quality Report be prepared
by every SPCB for the concerned State, (c) an inventory of discharges
and effluents disaggregated to the district level be prepared, (d) a research
cell be formed in each SPCB and a network be established with the
c proposed clean technology centre and (f) model environmental impact
assessments be prepared for major categories of industries.
29. Finally, the Menon Committee 13 made recommendations
that arc a part of the communication of 16th August, 2005 referred to
above. It was also recommended that (a) in general, State Governments
D should not interfere with recruitment policies of the SPCBs, especially
where the Boards arc making efforts to equip their institutions with more
and better trained engineering and scientific staff, (b) the statutory
independence and functional autonomy given to the SPCBs should be
protected and the Boards should be kept free from political interference.
The Boards should be enabled to make independent decisions in this
E
regard and (c) the Chairperson of the SPCB should be a full-time
appointee for a period of five years and the Member-Secretary of the
SPCB should also be appointed for a period of five years.
30. All these suggestions and recommendations arc more than
enough for making expert and professional appointments to the SPCBs
F being geared towards establishing a professional body with multifarious
tasks intended to preserve and protect the environment and consisting
of expe11s. Any contrary view or compromise in the appointments would
render the exercise undertaken by all these committees completely
irrelevant and redundant. Surely, it cannot be said that the committees
G were not constituted for the purpose of putting their recommendations in
the dustbin.
31. Unfortunately, notwithstanding all these suggestions,
recommendations and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by
13
Constituted pmsuant to an order passed by this Court on 14th October, 2003 in
H Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 985
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

persons who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or A
professional experience to address the issues for which the SPCBs were
established by law. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences in a Report
published quite recently in 2013 titled "Environmental Regulatory
Authorities in India: An Assessment of State Pollution Control Boards"
had this to say about some of the appointments to the SPCBs:
B
"An analysis of data collected from State Pollution Control Boards,
however, gives a contrasting picture. It has been observed that
time and again across state governments have not been able to
choose a qualified, impartial, and politically neutral person of high
standing to this crucial regulatory post. The recent appointments
of chairpersons of various State Pollution Control Boards like c
Karnataka (A a senior BJP leader), Himachal Pradesh (B a
Congress party leader and former MLA), Uttar Pradesh (C
appointed on the recommendation of SP leader X), Arunachal
Pradesh (D a sitting NCP party MLA), Manipur Pollution Control
Board (E a sitting MLA), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board D
(Fa former bureaucrat) are in blatant violation of the apex court
guidelines. The apex court has recommended that the appointees
should be qualified in the field of environment or should have
special knowledge of the subject. It is unfortunate that in a
democratic set up, key enterprises and boards arc headed by
bureaucrats for over a decade. In this connection, it is very E
important for State Governments to understand that filling a key
regulatory post with the primary intention to reward an ex-official
through his or her appointment upon retirement, to a position for
which he or she may not possess the essential overall qualifications,
docs not do j usticc to the people of their own states and also F
staffs working in the State Pollution Control Boards. The primary
lacuna with this kind ofappointment was that it did not evoke any
trust in the people that decisions taken by an ex-official of the
State or a former political leader, appointed to this regulatory post
through what appeared to be a totally non-transparent unilateral
decision. Many senior environmental scientists and other officers G·
of various State Pollution Control Boards have expressed their
concern for appointing bureaucrats and political leader as
Chairpersons who they feel not able to create a favourable

H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A atmosphere and an effective work culture in the functioning of
the board. It has also been argued by various environmental groups
that ifthe government is unable to find a competent person, then
it should advertise the post, as has been done recently by states
like Odisha. However, State Governments have been defending
their decision to appoint bureaucrats to the post of Chairperson as
B
they believe that the vast experience ofIAS officers in handling
responsibilities would be easy. Another major challenge has been
appointing people without having any knowledge in this field. For
example, the appointment of G with maximum qualification of
Class X as Chairperson of State Pollution Control Board of Sikkim
c was clear violation ofWater Pollution and Prevention Act, 1974." 14
32. The concern really is not one ofa lack of professional expertise
- there is plenty of it available in the country- but the lack of dedication
. and willingness to take advantage of the resources available and instead
benefit someone close to the powers that be. With this couldn't-care-
D less attitude, the environment and public tmst are the immediate casualties.
It is unlikely that with such an attitude, any substantive effort can be
made to tackle the issues of environment degradation and issues of
pollution. Since the NGTwas faced with this situation, we can appreciate
its frustration at the scant regard for the law by some State Governments,
but it is still necessary in such situations to exercise restraint as cautioned
E in State of U..P. v. Jeet S. Bisftt. 15

33. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that it would
be appropriate, while setting aside the judgment and order of the NGT,
to direct the Executive in all the States to frame appropriate guidelines
or recmitment rules within six months, considering the institutional
F requirements of the SPCBs and the law laid down by statute, by this
Court and as per the reports of various committees and authorities and
ensure that suitable professionals and experts arc appointed to the SPCBs .
. Any damage to the environment could be permanent and irreversible or
at least long-lasting. Unless corrective measures are taken at the earliest,
G the State Governments should not be surprised if petitions are filed against
the State for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto in respect of the
appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs. We make
it clear that it is left open to public spirited individuals to move the
14
The names have been deliberately left out by us

H " c2001J 6sec ss6
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. 987
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

appropriate High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if A
any person who does not meet the statutory or constitutional requirements
is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is presently
continuing as such.
34. The appeals are disposed of in light of the above discussion.
B
Divya Pandey Appeals disposed o[