The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Composition, Jurisdiction, Powers, Principles and the Tribunal's Role in Environmental Justice

Environmental cases need judges who understand both law and science, procedures that are quick and flexible, and remedies that go beyond damages to restoring the environment. For decades such cases clogged civil courts and High Courts, and the Supreme Court repeatedly called for a specialised forum. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 created that forum: a tribunal of judicial and expert members with original jurisdiction over substantial questions relating to the environment, power to award relief, compensation and restitution, appellate jurisdiction over clearances and pollution control orders, and a statutory mandate to apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. India thus became one of the few countries with a dedicated national environmental court.

1. Establishment and Object of the NGT

1.1 Background

The idea of environmental courts was suggested by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak), (1987) 1 SCC 395, and developed in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212, and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718, which proposed courts combining judges and scientists. The Law Commission's 186th Report (2003) recommended environmental courts. Two earlier attempts failed: the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was never brought into force, and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 created a weak body that rarely overturned clearances. Both were repealed by Section 38 of the NGT Act.

1.2 Establishment

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (Act No. 19 of 2010) received assent on 2 June 2010, and the Tribunal was established under Section 3 on 18 October 2010. Its Principal Bench sits in New Delhi, with zonal benches at Bhopal (Central), Pune (Western), Kolkata (Eastern) and Chennai (Southern), and circuit benches as needed.

1.3 Object

The preamble states the object as the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources, including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property, and matters connected therewith. It records that India participated in the Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1992) conferences and is committed to providing judicial and administrative remedies to victims of pollution (Principle 13 of Rio), and that the Supreme Court has held the right to a healthy environment to be part of Article 21.

2. Composition of the NGT

Under Section 4, the Tribunal consists of a full-time Chairperson, not less than ten and not more than twenty full-time Judicial Members, and not less than ten and not more than twenty full-time Expert Members. The Chairperson may invite persons with specialised knowledge to assist in a particular case. Every bench must include at least one Judicial Member and one Expert Member.

2.1 Chairperson

Under Section 5, a person is qualified for appointment as Chairperson if he is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court. The Chairperson is appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Chairperson exercises administrative control, constitutes benches and may transfer cases. Justice Swatanter Kumar was the first full-time Chairperson; Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel (2018 to 2023) oversaw a major expansion of monitoring jurisdiction; and Justice Prakash Shrivastava, former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, took charge in August 2023.

2.2 Judicial Members

A person is qualified to be a Judicial Member if he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court. A Judge of a High Court who has been a Judicial Member for five years is also qualified to be Chairperson.

2.3 Expert Members

A person is qualified to be an Expert Member if he has a degree in Master of Science (physical or life sciences) with a doctorate, or a Master of Engineering or Technology, and fifteen years' experience in the relevant field including five years' practical experience in environment and forests (including pollution control, hazardous substance management, EIA, climate change, biodiversity and forest conservation) in a reputed national-level institution; or has administrative experience of fifteen years, including five years of dealing with environmental matters in the Central or State Government or a reputed institution. Expert Members bring the scientific understanding that distinguishes the Tribunal from ordinary courts.

2.4 Tenure and conditions of service

Members' tenure and service conditions were originally fixed by the Act (a non-renewable term of five years, subject to prescribed age limits) and later brought under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which prescribed a four-year term. In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (19 November 2025), the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the 2021 Act, including the four-year tenure and the minimum age of fifty, as an impermissible legislative override of its earlier judgments, restored the standards laid down in its earlier decisions (a minimum five-year term), and directed the Union to set up a National Tribunals Commission.

3. Original Jurisdiction: Section 14

Section 14 has three ingredients: (i) a civil case; (ii) involving a substantial question relating to environment, including enforcement of a legal right relating to environment; and (iii) the question must arise out of the implementation of a Schedule I enactment. Under Section 14(2), the Tribunal hears such disputes and settles them and passes orders.

3.1 Substantial question relating to environment

Under Section 2(1)(m), a substantial question relating to environment includes an instance where (i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person by which the community at large (other than an individual or group of individuals) is affected or likely to be affected, or the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial, or the damage to public health is broadly measurable; or (ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution. The definition screens out purely private disputes, such as a neighbour's quarrel about a drain, while keeping in matters of public significance.

3.2 Civil cases involving environmental disputes

The Tribunal's jurisdiction is civil. It does not try criminal offences under the environmental Acts, which remain with criminal courts. 'Civil cases' has been read broadly to include any proceeding for enforcement of environmental rights, prevention of environmental harm, closure or regulation of polluting activity, compensation and restoration. Section 29 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters that the Tribunal is empowered to decide.

3.3 Schedule I enactments

Schedule I lists seven enactments whose implementation gives rise to the Tribunal's jurisdiction:

1. the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
2. the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (since repealed in 2017);
3. the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (now titled the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980);
4. the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
5. the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
6. the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; and
7. the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

3.4 Limitation under Section 14

Under Section 14(3), no application for adjudication of a dispute shall be entertained unless it is made within six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. The Tribunal may allow a further period not exceeding sixty days if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause. For continuing wrongs, such as ongoing pollution, the Tribunal has treated the cause of action as recurring, but the words 'first arose' have led it to reject stale challenges to completed actions.

4. Relief, Compensation and Restitution: Section 15

Under Section 15(1), the Tribunal may, by an order, provide:

1. relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the Schedule I enactments (including accidents occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
2. for restitution of property damaged; and
3. for restitution of the environment for such area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit.

Compensation to victims covers death, injury, medical expenses, loss of livelihood (for example, fishermen whose catch was destroyed) and loss of crops. Restitution of damaged property requires the polluter to restore or pay for restoring the property to its former condition. Restitution of the environment is the most distinctive remedy: the Tribunal may order remediation of land, rivers and wetlands, afforestation, and payment of the cost of ecological restoration, calculated where necessary by expert committees.

Under Section 15(2), relief under this section is in addition to relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Under Section 15(3), an application for compensation or restitution must be made within five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose, extendable by sixty days for sufficient cause. Under Section 15(4), the Tribunal may apportion the compensation among victims, and Section 24 requires compensation for environmental damage to be remitted to the authority administering the Environment Relief Fund under the PLI Act.

5. Appellate Jurisdiction: Section 16

Section 16 makes the Tribunal the appellate forum against orders of regulators under the scheduled Acts. Any person aggrieved may appeal within thirty days of the communication of the order, extendable by sixty days for sufficient cause. The main categories are:

5.1 Appeal against environmental clearance

The appeal against an environmental clearance is the most frequently used route. Any person aggrieved, which the Tribunal has read broadly to include local residents, environmental organisations and public-spirited persons, may challenge an EC on grounds such as a defective EIA report, a flawed or missing public hearing, failure of the Expert Appraisal Committee to apply its mind, or non-consideration of cumulative impacts. The limitation runs from the date the EC is communicated, which the Tribunal has held to mean the date it is placed in the public domain (on the website, in newspapers and on the project site). In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401 (Mopa airport), the Supreme Court held that the NGT, as an expert appellate body, must examine the merits of the EC and the adequacy of the appraisal, rather than merely deferring to the regulator.

5.2 Appeal against forest clearance

Approvals for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes under Section 2 of the forest conservation law may be appealed. The Tribunal examines whether the Forest Advisory Committee considered alternatives, wildlife impacts, compensatory afforestation and the rights of forest dwellers (including the consent of gram sabhas under the Forest Rights Act, as required by Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forest, (2013) 6 SCC 476).

5.3 Appeal against pollution control orders

Orders of State Pollution Control Boards refusing or cancelling consent, directing closure or stoppage of electricity or water supply, and orders of appellate authorities under the Water and Air Acts, lie in appeal to the Tribunal. After the Jan Vishwas amendments, orders of adjudicating officers imposing monetary penalties under the EPA, Air and Water Acts also lie in appeal to the Tribunal, subject to a pre-deposit of a portion of the penalty.

6. Liability to Pay Environmental Compensation: Section 17

Section 17 fixes liability on the person responsible for an accident or for the adverse impact of an activity, operation or process. Schedule II lists heads of compensation: death, permanent or temporary disability, medical expenses, loss of wages, damage to private property, expenses for evacuation and relief, loss of business, damage to the environment (including pollution of soil, air, water and land), and the cost of restoration. Where the damage is caused by two or more persons, Section 17(2) allows the Tribunal to apportion liability in an equitable manner.

6.1 The no-fault principle under the NGT Act

Section 17(3) requires the Tribunal, in case of an accident, to apply the principle of no fault. The claimant need not prove negligence; it is enough to show that the accident caused the harm. This statutory rule complements the judge-made absolute liability of the Oleum gas case and the no-fault relief under the PLI Act. For damage from continuing activities (not accidents), the Tribunal applies the polluter pays principle under Section 20, which similarly focuses on causation rather than fault.

7. Applications, Procedure and Principles

7.1 Applications and appeals: Section 18

Under Section 18(2), an application for grant of relief or compensation, settlement of dispute, or an appeal may be made by: the person who has sustained injury; the owner of the property damaged; the legal representatives of a deceased person; any agent duly authorised; any person aggrieved, including a representative body or organisation; or the Central or State Government, a Union territory administration, the CPCB or SPCB, a local authority, or any environmental authority constituted under the EPA. The Tribunal must endeavour to dispose of applications and appeals finally within six months of filing (Section 18(3)).

7.2 NGT procedure and non-application of the CPC: Section 19

Section 19(1) provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but is guided by the principles of natural justice. Section 19(2) gives it power to regulate its own procedure, and Section 19(3) frees it from the rules of evidence in the Indian Evidence Act (now the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Under Section 19(4), however, it has the powers of a civil court for specified matters: summoning and enforcing attendance and examining on oath; discovery and production of documents; receiving evidence on affidavits; requisitioning public records; issuing commissions; reviewing its decision; dismissing applications for default or deciding ex parte; setting aside such orders; granting interim orders (including injunctions and stay) after hearing the parties; and ordering cessation of any activity likely to cause environmental damage.

The Tribunal's procedure is regulated in detail by the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. It routinely appoints joint committees of the CPCB, SPCB, District Magistrate and experts to visit sites and report, and relies on their reports as evidence. The principles of natural justice require notice to the affected party, an opportunity to respond to committee reports, and a reasoned order; the Supreme Court has set aside NGT orders passed on committee reports without giving the affected party a chance to object.

7.3 Principles to be applied: Section 20

Section 20 converts three principles, previously developed by the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, into a statutory mandate:

• Sustainable development: development that meets present needs without compromising future generations; the Tribunal balances projects against ecological limits, often allowing activity with conditions rather than prohibition.
• Precautionary principle: where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty is no reason to postpone preventive measures; the burden of proof lies on the developer to show that the activity is benign (Nayudu, 1999).
• Polluter pays principle: the polluter bears the cost of compensating victims and restoring the environment; this is the foundation of the Tribunal's environmental compensation orders.

8. Appeals, Execution and Penalties

8.1 Appeal from NGT to the Supreme Court: Section 22

Any person aggrieved by an award, decision or order of the Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within ninety days of its communication, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (that is, a substantial question of law). The Supreme Court may extend the period by ninety days for sufficient cause. There is no intermediate appeal to the High Court.

8.2 Review powers of the NGT

Section 19(4)(f) gives the Tribunal power to review its own decision. The Practice and Procedure Rules require a review application to be filed within thirty days, and review is confined to grounds analogous to Order XLVII of the CPC: discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. A review is not an appeal in disguise.

8.3 Execution of NGT orders

Under Section 25, an award, order or decision of the Tribunal is executable as a decree of a civil court, and the Tribunal has all the powers of a civil court for this purpose. It may transmit an order to a civil court for execution. In practice the Tribunal also monitors compliance directly, calling for action taken reports, appointing monitoring committees, and directing Chief Secretaries to appear.

8.4 Penalty for non-compliance with NGT orders

Under Section 26, whoever fails to comply with an order, award or decision of the Tribunal is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or fine up to Rs 10 crore, or both; for a continuing failure, an additional fine of up to Rs 25,000 per day. Where the offender is a company, the fine may extend to Rs 25 crore, with up to Rs 1 lakh per day for continuing failure. Section 27 makes persons in charge of the company liable, and Section 28 covers government departments, with the head of department deemed guilty unless he proves lack of knowledge or due diligence.

9. Suo Motu Powers of the NGT

The Act does not expressly confer suo motu power, and for years its existence was disputed. The Tribunal began taking cognisance of news reports and letters, especially from 2018 onwards. The Supreme Court settled the question in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401 (decided 7 October 2021), holding that the NGT is a sui generis forum with a broad mandate, not a mere adjudicator of disputes; that Section 14 and Section 15 and the power to regulate its own procedure under Section 19, read with the Tribunal's role as a specialised body, enable it to act suo motu on letters, petitions, news reports and other communications; and that a narrow reading would defeat the purpose of the Act. The Tribunal has since used this power extensively, as in the LG Polymers styrene leak (2020) and numerous cases on river pollution, waste and industrial accidents.

10. The NGT, Constitutional Courts and Civil Courts

10.1 NGT and constitutional courts

The NGT is a statutory tribunal; it cannot exercise the powers of a constitutional court. It cannot strike down a statute as unconstitutional, and whether it can examine the validity of subordinate legislation (notifications and rules) has divided opinion; High Courts have held that such questions belong to them under Article 226. The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction under Article 32 and as the appellate court under Section 22, and in cases it is already monitoring (such as the M.C. Mehta air and forest matters and T.N. Godavarman), it continues to act directly.

10.2 NGT versus High Court

In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India, (2012) 8 SCC 326, the Supreme Court directed that environmental cases covered by the NGT Act should ordinarily be transferred to the NGT, and that High Courts should respect its specialised jurisdiction. But following L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted. High Courts therefore still entertain environmental writs, particularly where constitutional questions, non-scheduled Acts (such as the Wild Life Act) or vires of notifications are involved. The Supreme Court has discouraged parallel proceedings on the same subject before both fora. Notably, the appeal from the NGT lies directly to the Supreme Court, not to the High Court.

10.3 NGT versus civil court

Section 29 bars civil courts from entertaining any appeal, claim or dispute that the Tribunal is empowered to decide, and Section 33 gives the Act overriding effect. A claim for compensation arising from pollution under a scheduled Act must therefore go to the NGT, not to a civil court under tort law. Purely private disputes that do not raise a substantial question relating to environment (for example, a boundary quarrel over a drain) remain with civil courts.

11. Environmental Compensation before the NGT

Environmental compensation is the Tribunal's principal remedy. It is computed on the polluter pays principle, taking into account the cost of restoration, the gain made by the polluter, the duration and gravity of the violation, and deterrence. The CPCB has framed methodologies for various sectors at the Tribunal's instance. Compensation has been imposed on private industries, builders and hospitals, and increasingly on States, municipal bodies and Pollution Control Boards for systemic failure. Amounts are usually deposited in a ring-fenced account and used for remediation under the supervision of the Chief Secretary. Critics note that compensation from the State is paid by taxpayers and may not change behaviour unless linked to accountability of officials.

12. The NGT's Role in Key Areas

12.1 NGT and municipal waste

In the Almitra Patel litigation transferred from the Supreme Court (O.A. No. 606 of 2018), the Tribunal has monitored compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules across States, requiring remediation of legacy dumpsites, processing of fresh waste and treatment of sewage. It imposed very large environmental compensation on States for gaps in solid and liquid waste management, including Rs 12,000 crore on Maharashtra (2022) and similar orders on Karnataka, West Bengal and others, to be spent on waste infrastructure. It also held Kochi responsible for the Brahmapuram dumpsite fire (Rs 100 crore, 2023).

12.2 NGT and river pollution

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga), decided by the NGT in July 2017, the Tribunal declared a no-development zone of one hundred metres from the Ganga between Haridwar and Unnao, prohibited dumping of waste within five hundred metres, and imposed environmental compensation on violators. In Manoj Mishra v. Union of India ('Maili se Nirmal Yamuna', 2015), it prescribed a comprehensive plan for the Yamuna, and in a 2016 order imposed Rs 5 crore on the Art of Living Foundation for damage to the Yamuna floodplain. It has also identified polluted river stretches nationally and directed river rejuvenation committees in every State.

12.3 NGT and mining

Following Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629, which required environmental clearance even for small mining leases, the Tribunal has repeatedly restrained illegal sand mining on riverbeds, insisted on district survey reports and replenishment studies, and imposed compensation for mining without clearance. In 2014 it banned unregulated rat-hole coal mining in Meghalaya and later imposed Rs 100 crore on the State for failure to control illegal mining.

12.4 NGT and EIA

The Tribunal hears appeals against ECs and original applications on projects operating without EC. It has quashed or suspended clearances for inadequate EIA reports, faulty public hearings and failure to consider cumulative impacts, and has required fresh appraisal. It has also dealt with the question of ex post facto clearances, now settled by the Supreme Court's Vanashakti judgment of July 2026, which upheld the 2017 one-time amnesty notification but prospectively quashed the 2021 office memorandum.

12.5 NGT and biodiversity

Since the Biological Diversity Act is in Schedule I, the Tribunal hears appeals on access and benefit sharing and enforces the Act's institutional duties. In Chandra Bhal Singh v. Union of India (O.A. No. 347 of 2016), it directed all States to constitute Biodiversity Management Committees and prepare People's Biodiversity Registers, warning of compensation for delay. It has also protected wetlands, mangroves and wildlife habitats through the Water Act, EPA and forest conservation law.

13. Critical Appraisal

The NGT has become one of the world's most active environmental courts, providing access to justice, scientific expertise and innovative remedies. Its criticisms are equally well known: vacancies and tenure uncertainty; heavy reliance on committee reports with limited cross-examination; very large compensation orders against States that are difficult to enforce; occasional overreach into policy; the narrow list of Schedule I Acts, which excludes wildlife and forest rights; and the absence of criminal jurisdiction. The 2025 Tribunals judgment and the proposed National Tribunals Commission may address independence and appointments. The Tribunal's legitimacy ultimately rests on reasoned, science-based orders and consistent enforcement.

14. Related Topics and Provisions