NGT Can Only Decide A Substantial Question Relating To The Environment: SC Quashes NGT Decision On SPCB Appointments [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court, on Friday, set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal whereby the functioning of Chairmen of 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) had been ceased due to the failure of such States to make appointments in adherence to NGT’s earlier judgment.

While the Bench comprising Justice M.B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta opined that the NGT had exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering the direction, it noted that the impugned order revealed issues that needed consideration.

“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 directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments and in laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs, however well-meaning 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, particularly the State Governments that make appointments or nominations to the SPCBs. Such appointments should not be made casually or without due application of mind considering the duties, functions and responsibilities of the SPCBs,” the Court observed.

Appointments to the SPCBs

While the Apex Court noted that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT as well as that of the Court to lay down specific guidelines for appointments to the SPCBs, it opined that “there should be considerable deliberation before an appointment is made and only the best should be appointed to the SPCB.”

It then highlighted the need for the executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for appointment to the SPCBs and directed the executive in all States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months, “considering the institutional 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 are appointed to the SPCBs.”

The Bench also added a word of caution for the States, observing, “Any damage to the environment could be permanent and irreversible or at least long-lasting. Unless corrective measures are taken at the earliest, 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.”

Outside NGT’s jurisdiction

The Apex Court relied on Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which collectively lay down that for the NGT to have jurisdiction, 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. It also noted that there must be a claimant raising a dispute capable of settlement by grant of relief in the form of compensation or restitution of property damaged or restitution of the environment.

It then agreed with the contention that the appointment or removal of members of the SBCBs does not lie within the statutory jurisdiction of the NGT, as the same does not qualify to be a “substantial question relating to the environment”.

It further opined that a dispute would be “the assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by contrary claims on the other side” and that the issue of appointments 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 Bench, thereafter, observed, “It appears to us that the NGT realized its limitations in this regard and therefore issued a direction to the State Governments to reconsider the appointments already been made, but the seminal issue is really whether the NGT could at all have entertained a claim of the 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.”

Grievance of those already removed

The Court was informed that some States have implemented the order of the NGT and have removed some members. It then noted that the Chairmen and members who have already been removed pursuant to the NGT order would have an independent cause of action, leaving it 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 public interest issue and we cannot reverse the situation,” the Bench observed.