Can the National Green Tribunal (NGT) exercise Suo Motu Jurisdiction under the NGT Act?

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) or not.

 

PLAIN MEANING

 

Exercising suo motu jurisdiction means acting on its own motion and taking up a matter without waiting for the same to be filed before itself i.e., the Tribunal. Before adverting any further, let us understand the relevant provisions and the scheme of the NGT Act.

 

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW

 

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act inter alia provides mandate to the NGT to resolve multi-disciplinary issues arising in environmental cases.

 

S. 14 (1) of the NGT Act provides that “the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases” that relate to environment and arise out of the laws mentioned in its Schedule I. It is important to note that S. 14 (1) does not provide that the jurisdiction of the NGT is contingent upon moving an application by a party.

 

S. 18 (2) (d) provides that any person aggrieved can move the NGT. Thus, there is no bar as to who could move the NGT.

 

Further, Rule 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011 (NGT Rules) are also important for us. Rule 24 provides that “the Tribunal 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.” Thus, wide discretionary powers have been conferred upon the NGT to not only to prevent abuse of process but also to secure the ends of justice.

 

Keeping these provisions in mind, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court to understand whether the NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction or not.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court cited the case of Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation, (2019) 18 SCC 494, wherein it was held that NGT has wide powers and “an interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction.”

 

Secondly, the Court also cited the case of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 718, wherein it was held that in environmental matters, it would be necessary and ideal to confer the concerned forum with jurisdiction that combines appeal, judicial review and enforcement functions.

 

Thirdly, the Court cited another case of State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union, (2019) 8 SCC 177, wherein it was observed that the NGT “has a duty to do justice while exercising wide range of jurisdiction and the wide range of powers, given to it by the statute.”

 

Fourthly, the Court noted that “the NGT is a Tribunal with sui generis characteristic, with the special and all-encompassing jurisdiction to protect the environment.”

 

Fifthly, the Court observed that under S. 14 (1) that provides that “the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases” that relate to environment, the NGT may interfere with a situation that warrants its attention, without involving any formal application or an adjudicatory process.

 

Sixthly, the Court also noted that there are ample provisions in the NGT Act that show that it has suo motu jurisdiction and even otherwise, “we must always remember that processual law is not to be a 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.”

 

And lastly, the Court concluded by stating that “it would be procedural hairsplitting to argue 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.” And hence, it was declared that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act.

 

Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

I concur with the reasoning of the Court that by virtue of the statutory provisions contained in the NGT Act and its Rules, the NGT is vested with suo motu powers. S.14 (1) unequivocally provides that “the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases” that relate to environment. Similarly, Rule 24 that provides wide discretionary powers to NGT to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, also shows that NGT can take whatever steps it so deems fit to do justice. For me, S. 14 (1) and Rule 24 are more than enough to convince that with suo motu powers are vested with the NGT.