Consider having NGT benches in every state: SC to Centre

A bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy emphasised that the principle of access to justice coupled with the idea of protecting the environment should guide the Centre in considering more zonal benches.

Why cannot the National Green Tribunal (NGT) have its benches in every state to enable citizens to raise important issues of environment without having to travel hundreds of kilometres to approach one of the five existing benches, the Supreme Court asked the Union government on Tuesday.

written submissions. The court reserved its order on the association’s petition that wants some pertinent provisions of the NGT Act.

A bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy emphasised that the principle of access to justice coupled with the idea of protecting the environment should guide the Centre in considering more zonal benches.

“Why can’t you have NGT benches in every state? There is a point about access to justice and the cause of the environment. Having more benches may go a long way. It will be very helpful for the litigants and would also lighten the burden of the existing benches. Most importantly, this will bring this important forum to the doorstep of the citizens,” the bench told attorney general KK Venugopal.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, challenging various provisions of the NGT Act, which according to the association’s lawyer Siddharth R Gupta, gave unbridled power to the Centre in matters of establishment of tribunal and fixing the Supreme Court as the only appellate forum for contesting appeals arising out of the NGT orders.

Gupta, on his part, underlined that the principal bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court is at Jabalpur, but the Union government, exercising its untrammelled powers, established the central zone bench at Bhopal. He rued that the law does not provide for any consultative process with the chief justice of the high court and that the litigants are also left high and dry in approaching these minimal numbers of zonal benches of the NGT.

At this, the bench said there may be substance in Gupta’s arguments. “If you have one bench each in every state, more people will be induced to take up the causes of protecting the environment. If these tribunals are closer to the doorstep of the citizens and access to justice is made available, they will be enthusiastic to help environmental causes. Why make them travel hundreds of kilometres for a cause which ultimately helps everyone?” the court told Venugopal.

The objective of establishing tribunals as quasi-judicial bodies was to bring appropriate forum to the doorstep of the citizens and it would be in complete sync with this objective to have more benches of the NGT, it added.

Venugopal said he would take instructions on the matter. “I will find this out,” he told the bench, which gave Venugopal and Gupta three days to file their written submissions.

The court reserved its order on the association’s petition that wants some pertinent provisions of the NGT Act, including the ones that empower the Centre to establish specific benches of tribunals and provide the Supreme Court as the forum for entertaining statutory appeals, quashed.

During the hearing, the bench also lamented that every case before a tribunal is finally ending up in the Supreme Court and by providing the latter as the exclusive forum to deal with appeals from the NGT, the legislature has only increased the burden of the top court.

Venugopal replied that it is the prerogative of the legislature to provide for statutory appeals to the top court. Tribunals are highly specialised bodies and that specialisation makes them equal with the high courts, he added.