MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI V. ANKITA SINHA & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12122-12223 OF 2018
FACTS
The National Green Tribunal found an article titled; “Garbage Gangs of Deonar: The Kingpins and Their Multi–Crore Trade” on mismanaged waste at the Deonar dumping site and directed the article writer; Ankita Sinha to be the applicant for the case.
Inspections by authorities like CPCB, MPCB, and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) were done.
Reports showed a violation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and also damage to the environment and public health was evident.
NGT ordered MCGM to pay ₹5 crores as compensation.
MCGM filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. A stay was put on NGT’s orders.It challenged NGT's power to take suo moto cognizance
ISSUE
Whether the National Green Tribunal has the power to exercise Suo Motu Jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010?
Is NGT a mere adjudicatory body?
Whether NGT can take issues directly on the basis of a news report or letter?
HELD
The National Green Tribunal has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its function granted under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Court held that the reason behind the establishment of the National Green Tribunal is to protect the environment from any kind of damage as soon as possible. If NGT itself notices environmental damage, it becomes its duty to prevent that. If NGT cannot take cases suo motu then it fails the main objective of the NGT, which is the rapid disposal of environmental issue cases.
The court stated that "An Institution concerned with a significant aspect of Right to Life necessarily should be given the most liberal construction."
The Court adopted a purposive interpretation approach, which means the law should be interpreted in a way that serves the overarching purpose and intent of the NGT Act. The Court also invoked Heydon's Rule, which states that when interpreting a law, the court should choose the interpretation that best solves the problem the law aims to address and moves towards achieving the law's intended goal.
NGT’s power extend far beyond adjudication. It has the authority to address substantial environmental causes, provide compensation to victims, and confer broad locus standi akin to that of writ courts.NGT is vested with ‘non-adjudicatory powers’. The NGT's function is crucial for initiating, preventing, and delivering remedial justice in environmental matters in a fair and timely manner.
The Court ruled that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) must be regarded as a unique body (sui generis) with a special and exclusive role towards the public at large concerning environmental matters, and it must receive legal recognition equivalent to a court. According to Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the filing of an application is not necessary to initiate the NGT's jurisdiction. Three conditions are mandatory: firstly, it must involve civil cases; secondly, it must involve substantial environmental questions; and thirdly, it must relate to the implementation of enactments listed in Schedule One of the Act. Upon fulfilment of these conditions, the NGT's jurisdiction and powers are activated. Ultimately the Court held that the NGT can take suo motu action (initiate proceedings on its own). The Court provided guidelines that the NGT must give notice to the sender of the letter or the author of the media report that brought the matter to light, as well as to the party likely to be affected by the action, allowing them the right to present their case.
The court addressed the lack of judicial review over NGT's orders, noting that it was intentionally done to streamline the process and prevent unnecessary litigation in High Courts before reaching the Supreme Court. Therefore, the absence of judicial review by High Courts does not negate NGT's power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction, as it was a conscious decision to facilitate a more efficient and direct process of appeal to the Supreme Court.