TECHI TAGI TARA V. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS, SUPREME COURT, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1359/017, JUDGEMENT OF 22 SEPTEMBER 2017

 TECHI TAGI TARA V. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS, SUPREME COURT, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1359/017, JUDGEMENT OF 22 SEPTEMBER 2017

 

FACTS

The NGT examined the expertise and qualifications of members of the SPCB of almost all States and prima facie found that about ten States and one Union Territory had members in the SPCB who lacked the qualifications suggested by the Central Government. This batch of appeals is directed against the judgment and order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short ‘the NGT’) in directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments and in laying down guidelines for appointment to the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs).

 

ISSUES

1. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the NGT in directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs; and (ii) laying down guidelines for appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs maintainable?

 

REFERRED CASES

Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015)15 SCC 1:

The definition of “dispute” was noted. To understand the meaning of the word “dispute”, it would be appropriate to start with the grammatical or dictionary meaning of the term:

“Dispute’.—to argue about, to contend for, to oppose by argument, to call in question — to argue or debate (with, about or over) — a contest with words; an argument; a debate; a quarrel;”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., p. 424 defines “dispute” as under: “Dispute.—A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other. The subject of litigation; the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which issue is joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses examined.”

 

JUDGEMENT

The Court held that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished that some persons appointed to the State Pollution Control Boards (for short ‘SPCBs’) did not have, according to the NGT, the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members or chairpersons of such high powered and specialized statutory bodies and therefore did not deserve their appointment or nomination. 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.

The Court further held that the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs cannot be classified in any circumstance as a substantial question relating to the environment. At best it could be a substantial question relating to their appointment. Moreover, their appointment is not a dispute as one would normally understand it.

The failure of the State Government to appoint professional and experienced persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint any person at all might incidentally result in an ineffective implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this cannot be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT would have jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory obligation over which, in the present context and not universally, only a constitutional court would have jurisdiction and not a statutory body like the NGT. While we appreciate the anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect the environment as a part of its statutory functions, we cannot extend these concepts to the extent of enabling the NGT to consider who should be appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or who should not be so appointed.

Beyond the jurisdiction:

The Court held that “While it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT and also beyond our jurisdiction to lay down specific rules and guidelines for recruitment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs, we are of opinion that there should be considerable deliberation before an appointment is made and only the best should be appointed to the SPCB. It is necessary in this regard for the Executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for the appointment of such persons who would add lustre and value to the SPCB…”

 

COMMENTARY

However, “a person aggrieved” can invoke jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) also in cases where a substantial question relating to environment is involved. There is no specific statute other than the body of civil laws in general that can generate civil action against environmental violations.

The SPCBs set up under the special enactments with the duty to prosecute environmental offenders have been able to achieve very little by way of prosecution. An empirical survey on prosecution in the State of Gujarat finds that the Boards are ineffective prosecutors.