Based on the analysis of the judgments there has been an increase in the number of the cases of National Green tribunal with the growth of industrialization and development in a developing country like India. The efficiency of the tribunal as an institution analyzing the data of the total cases that have come before the tribunal as a whole and how many have been disposed and how many are pending. As per the data on the NGT website ( https://greentribunal.gov.in/). As on 30/06/2021 Figure 1 created as per data provided on the website gives the picture that the National Green tribunal, as an institution is very efficient with the number of cases that are coming to it and amount of the cases that has been disposed and pendency of the cases, is very low. As per the National Green Tribunal Act, the tribunal is under the mandate to resolve the cases expeditiously and the tribunal was established with the view to bring speedy justice in environmental matters and as per the Act, the tribunal is under the mandate to dispose of the cases within six months. In addition, it can be concluded through the data that the Tribunal has been achieving the objective of the speedy disposal of environmental matters, as the pendency of cases is very low while the disposal rate is very high as an institution and in the Indian context where cases load is very high.
The National Green Tribunal to provide greater access to justice was established with a principal bench at Delhi and the zonal benches which includes western zonal bench at Pune, southern zonal bench at Chennai, eastern zonal bench at Kolkata, Coastal zonal bench at Bhopal, and efficiency-wise as one looks to the data for bench wise performance as far as pendency of cases is concerned.
As per the data taken from the National Green tribunal website and looking to the pendency of the cases, zone-wise (figure 2) brings a clear picture as to how the benches have performed in terms of efficiency since its inception. The maximum number of pendency is at the Pune bench, which is the west zone bench while the minimum number of pendency is at the Bhopal bench, which is the central zone bench while in the case of other benches the pendency is in between the two benches.
During the analysis of the judgments from 2015-20(figure 3), it was seen the number of cases are on increase including all the benches maximum being in the year 2017 and the lowest being in 2020 (Figure 3 )due to the covid 19 situations as the tribunal was working in the online mode.
Analysis was done for the zone-wise judgments for the year 2019 (figure 4) maximum judgments have been delivered by the principal bench while the minimum number has been delivered by the western zone bench. While examining the significant interventions by the court for the year 2019 specifically in January, February, and March. The jurisdiction of the National Green tribunal is over the various enactments The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [Water Act], The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [Air Act], The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Accordingly, the cases fall under various categories as issues relating to air, water, forests, mining operations, municipal solid waste management 2016, industrial operations.
The category of cases adjudicated by the National Green Tribunal in these months is an original application filed by the pollution control boards which are the implementing authorities and seeking for enforcement of conditions imposed on polluters, aggrieved persons concerning environmental issues falling under the purview of enactments falling under the purview of the Act, seeking compensation for pollution, environmental damage, etc. appeals from aggrieved person and NGOs for noncompliance of the project authorities the conditions imposed under the environmental and forest clearance given by the ministry of environment and forest for the development project, non-compliance with the norms, appeals from the industries against the decision of the pollution control board. The issues that have come before the National Green Tribunal for adjudication where the tribunal has done the significant intervention in these months deal with the following issues majorly dealing with Water pollution(effluent plants, common treatment effluent plant, cleaning of river), solid waste management, coal mining, industrial activities, environmental damage, Air pollution(thermal power stations, industry pollution ), groundwater contamination, environmental clearance, Noise pollution, project planning, Forest land, flouting environmental norms, biomedical waste, Air pollution, sand mining, river pollution, noise pollution.
Judgment analysis
The analysis of various judgments and impact the National Green Tribunal has created by way of resolving the disputes is explicit with the detailed analysis done concerning each of the subject areas where the issues were raised on various categories of the subject matter. For the month of January, issues, and directions given by the tribunal are as follows-Water pollution (Aryavart Foundation Versus Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. &Ors. (O.A.No. 95/2018) tribunal directing for audit of the central pollution control board and setting up of the committee to identify the remedial measures for the functioning of the board asking to pay compensation to pollution control board not following the norms, compliance of solid waste management rules Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules-2016 (O.A. No.606/2018) creating task forces apart from the oversight force consisting of High court judges and to create awareness on SWM rules 2016, coal mining, Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district Versus State of Meghalaya& Ors (O.A. No. 110(THC)/2012) imposing the penalty of Rs 100 crore on the state and state could be made liable for colluding with the polluters apart from non-compliance, cleaning of river Yamuna Manoj Mishra versus Union of India &Ors. (O.A. No 6/2012) for the execution of directions based on the expert committee recommendation and to furnish a performance guarantee of Rs 10 crore to ensure compliance, Closure of unauthorized industrial activates in Delhi in residential/non-conforming areas Mayank Manohar & Paras Singh, Reporter Times of India Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Ors. (O.A. No. 601/2018) oversight body created headed by the former high court judges, Solid Waste Management in Agra city and areas under the Agra Cantonment Board, and eco-sensitive Taj Trapezium Zone(Social Action for Forest and Environment (SAFE) Versus Union of India &Ors. (O.A. No. 306/2016) directed state to furnish a performance guarantee of Rs 25 crore to the satisfaction of the Central Pollution Control Board within the timelines in a month, Compliance of Plastic and Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 at the railway compartments, stations, and railway tracks(Saloni Singh &Anr. Versus Union of India &Ors. (O.A. No. 141/2014)directed selected railway stations to achieve environmental standards in form of an environmental management system within 3 months, Environmental damage by marriage halls in Ghaziabad(Sri Om Tyagi Versus Ministry of Environment & Forest &Ors (O.A. No.412/2018) Tribunal constituted an oversight committee for Delhi to look compile data of places where marriages and functions take place in Delhi, regulate noise caused by DJ’s and crackers, etc., ensure compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 among other things., Air pollution by Thermal Power Stations in Districts of Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh and Sonebhadra in Uttar Pradesh(Ashwani Kumar Dubey Versus Union of India &Ors. (O.A. No. 164/2018) The Tribunal directed the polluting units to take steps within prescribed timelines to furnish Performance Guarantees CPCB to the extent assessed by the oversight committee headed by former high court judge and asked secretaries of state of UP and MP to submit the health status of the people and any disease by which people were affected in two months and long term plan for providing portable water, Pollution caused by drug manufacturing units in Patancheru and Bollaram industrial clusters in Telangana State. Chidambaram Versus Krishna Limited Unit II &Ors. (Appeal No. 141/2018) (Earlier Appeal No. 123/2013 (SZ), Cleaning of River PeriyarSuo Motu proceedings initiated based on the representation received from Justice R. Bhaskaran Former Judge Versus State of Kerala & Ors. (Original Application No. 585/2018) (Earlier O. A. No. 395/2013 (SZ) (THC) The Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee of CPCB, Kerala SPCB, and District Magistrate to forthwith prepare an action plan for compliance of law particularly the biomedical waste and solid waste management Rules and furnish. In these cases, the court has given directions to the government authorities to giving compensation to defaulters and setting up expert committees wherever required, create the oversight committee, furnishing guarantee for performance and payment of damages in cases of environmental degradation.
For February,, the significant interventions by the tribunal have been the Establishment and functioning of Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs), Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs), and Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti& Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No.593/2017) where the tribunal has come up with the scientific formula to calculate environment compensation for polluting industries which is a significant step in combating pollution, Amendment’ to the Environment Clearance (EC) for expansion of real-estate projects Anil Tharthare) Versus The Secretary, Envt. Dept. Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. (Appeal No. 122/2018) the tribunal held the office order of amendment of the expansion of construction projects and modifying environmental clearance is invalid and directed the project proponent to deposit 1 crore with CPCB within 1 month, Air pollution in the outskirts of Mumbai due to emissions by oil companies and similar businesses(CharudattKoli Versus M/ s. Sea Lord Containers Ltd.(O.A. No. 40/2014) The Tribunal has noted that the liability of companies including Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has been established in failing to comply with the previous directions, The Tribunal has directed the preparation of an integrated action plan to be submitted to CPCB, Pollution of Thirumanimuthar River in Tamil Nadu due to discharge of industrial effluents and municipal sewage(V. Manickam Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board & Ors. (O.A. No 51/2015 (SZ)) the Tribunal directed a joint inspection to ascertain present status by a team comprising of representatives of CPCB and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to finalize compensation is required to be recovered from Salem Municipal Corporation as well as from polluting industries. Meanwhile, Salem Municipal Corporation is directed to deposit an interim compensation of Rs. 25 lacs with the CPCB within one month and also furnish a Performance Guarantee of Rs 50 lakhs to CPCB to ensure that untreated effluents will not be discharged and necessary steps to prevent such discharge will be taken positively within three months failing which the amount of Performance Guarantee will be forfeited, Curbing noise pollution as per the statutory mandate of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000(Hardeep Singh & Ors. Applicant(s) Versus SDMC & Ors. (O.A. No. 519/2016) on failure to comply with the previous directions of the tribunal, the tribunal asked the Delhi government to file a fresh compliance report within a month and deposit rs 5 lakhs as the cost with the CPCB, Contamination of groundwater in Delhi(Tribunal on its motion Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (O.A. No.496/2016) the tribunal took into account several steps by the independent monitoring committee appointed by the Delhi Jal Board to curb the contamination and rejuvenation of groundwater and suggested the committee can meet the expert committee set for cleaning river Yamuna, Prevention and remedying pollution in river Mondovi in Goa(Kashinath Shetye & Ors. Versus Srinet Kotwale & Ors. (O.A. No. 486/2018 (WZ)) The Tribunal also directed GPCB to make an assessment of the amount of compensation to be recovered and the persons from whom such recovery is to be effected, Pollution of rivers Satluj and Beas in the State of Punjab (Sobha Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. (O.A. No. 916/2018) the Tribunal also appointed new members to the monitoring committee to strengthen its functioning, Measures to protect the trees planted at public places P. Edwin Wilson Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. .(O.A. No.168/2017(SZ)) After Greater Chennai Corporation submitted that Detailed Project Planning for Sustainable Plantation Strategy Tribunal directed that de-concretizing to the extent of less than one meter around the trees may be completed within three months.
In March, the significant intervention of the tribunal has been in areas like Determination of whether the land in question in Haryana is ‘forest’ Lt. Col. (Retd.) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi versus State of Haryana & Ors. (O.A. No. 407/2017) The Tribunal applied the test laid down by landmark rulings of the Supreme Court that for an area to be defined as forest land by the Forest Department, an ordinary dictionary meaning of the word forest is applicable and not whether the area is recorded as forest in the revenue record, Remedial measures to be taken to bring the air quality of 102 cities identified as ‘non-attainment cities’, which do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards News item published in "The Times of India" Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled "NCAP with multiple timelines to clean air in 102 cities (O.A. No. 681/2018) it was respect to action submission to CPCB and states who have not submitted were required to pay compensation of Rs 1 crore and states failing to remove deficiencies in action plan liable to pay Rs 25 lac, Violation of environmental norms by M/s Ansal Buildwell Rajendra Kumar Goel versus Ministry of Environment & Forests & Ors. (O.A. No. 378/2016) the tribunal was tasked with taking remedial, preventive, and punitive measures for flouting environmental norms Tribunal directed the real estate promoters to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 crores as interim compensation with the CPCB within one month and an interest of 12% for any delay in depositing the compensation and also prosecution and recovery of damages, Illegal drawl of groundwater Harinder Dhingra Versus International Recreation & Amusement Ltd.& Ors (O.A. No. 458/2017) directed a committee with representatives of MoEF&CC, CPCB, Central Ground Water Authority and District Magistrate, Gurgaon to review the existing policy of permitting the supply of water for commercial purposes, when drinking water is scarce and whether the water is being diverted from the river supply for commercial use, without affecting e-flows, Non - compliance with the provisions of Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (BMW Rules) Shailesh Singh Versus Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjhanpur & Ors (O.A. No. 710/2017) because of ensuring compliance of BMW Rules in Uttar Pradesh an action plan was to be submitted with CPCB to ensure compliance, the Tribunal directed that states will be liable to pay a compensation of Rs 1 crore a month for delay in filing reports, Remedial steps to be taken for control of air pollution in the outskirts of Mumbai (Charudatt Koli Versus M/s Sea Lord Containers Ltd. (O.A. No. 40/2014) Tribunal had directed the preparation of an integrated action plan to be submitted to CPCB by the public sector refineries. Tribunal directed that the refineries pay interim compensation to the petitioners who have suffered health consequences over and above their medical bills, Monitoring mechanism for compliance of conditions of environment clearance evolved by MoEF&CC(Sandeep Mittal Versus Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change &Ors. (O.A. No. 837/2018) the Tribunal had directed the MoEF &CC to furnish data and strengthen the mechanism to periodically monitor the compliance of environmental clearance conditions. However, the data furnished is wholly inadequate to evaluate the effectiveness of the functioning of the mechanism and merely mentions figures of the projects monitored, without mentioning the extent of defaults found and further action is taken. Taking note of the omission, the Tribunal directed the official who has furnished the data to remain present in a person with the entire relevant data, improper disposal of the fly ash by the Thermal Power Plants (Sandplast (India) Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ministry of Environment and Forest & Ors. (O.A. No. 102/2014), Implementation of orders issued to remedy pollution of River Ganga M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 200/2014) Finding incomplete action plans, the Tribunal warned that the National Mission for Clean Ganga and the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal will have to pay compensation for not responding and failing to formulate the action plans for Phase II and III within a week, Illegal sand mining- particularly where mining leases were granted before obtaining environmental clearance Himmat Singh Shekhawat Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (O.A. No. 671/2017) Tribunal’s 2015 decision declaring the notifications granting mining leases without a valid environmental clearance invalid, states were required to submit a progress report. The Tribunal noted that Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh had also failed to file the reports along with Himachal Pradesh inability to conform to norms due to shortage of staff, remedial measures for the industrial or other pollution in Kali Nadi, Krishna, and Hindon Rivers Doaba Paryavaran Samiti Versus State of U.P. & Ors (O.A. No.231/2014) Tribunal seized with pollution of rivers Kali, Krishna and Hindon which has resulted in diseases and deaths of inhabitants of the area, had appointed a supervisory committee to effectively monitor the progress. So far, the prosecution has been initiated against 118 non-complying industries in Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, Meerut, Baghpat, Ghaziabad, and Gautam Budh Nagar in Uttar Pradesh. Based on the recommendations, the Tribunal has directed UP to prepare an action plan to ensure the water quality of river Hindon at least meets the water quality criteria for bathing and furnish a performance guarantee of Rs.5 crores. Significantly, the Tribunal directed that failure to implement the action plan within six months will result in forfeiture of the guarantee, control of noise pollution under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 Hardeep Singh & Ors. Versus SDMC & Ors. (O.A. No. 519/2016)
Analyzing the remedies that have been given by the tribunal they fall within in the form of directions to defaulters or by Setting up of committees, joint committees, oversight committees, audit of the pollution board, compensation, creation of task force for compliance, imposing a high penalty on the state as high as up to Rs 1crore, performance guarantee for the execution of directions, environmental compensation by drawing a scientific formula, compensation payment, joint inspection, monitoring committees, furnish data, action plan. The tribunal has employed such directions thus played an investigative role at times at other time has played a consultative role by consultation with the stakeholders and by setting up of the specialist committee, it has brought in in dialogue between the stakeholders and brought in, a participative approach which can bring contradictory claims and positions. Stakeholder’s role has broad impacts in the cases of river cleaning and air pollution. Specialized committees promote a cooperative approach but at the same fix the accountability of the stakeholders who are involved. Thus in this way, the National Green Tribunal has promoted greater access to justice by resolving the disputes with the participative approach by involving the stakeholders. The NGT has a huge amount of pressure as it is under the mandate to resolve the disputes within six months and to bring in speedy justice in environmental matters. However, the way NGT is bringing in democratic ways of resolving disputes is bringing in more environmental democracy and ushering in an era of better access to environmental justice. Over a decade of its establishment with the development and evolving complexity of environmental problems, the NGT has been successful in promoting access to environmental justice by bringing a participative approach to resolving disputes and establishing itself as an efficient tribunal with a very little rate of pendency of disputes.