Author: Pooja Singh, Dr Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidhalaya
ABSTRACT
“The environment is where we all meet : where we all have a mutual interest.It is the only thing all of us share” — Ladybird Johnson
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established under the NGT Act 2010, was envisioned as a specialized forum to deliver swift and expert adjudication on environmental disputes in India. This article critically examines whether the NGT has functioned as an effective guardian of environmental justice or remains a “toothless tiger” constrained by systemic limitations. By comparing the NGT with international environmental courts and analyzing recent reforms such as the 2025 Compliance Wing, the article argues that while the NGT possesses significant legal teeth, its practical bite is blunted by bureaucratic and structural hurdles. Strengthening statutory enforcement, enhancing technical capacity, and codifying procedural frameworks are essential to transform the Tribunal into a more potent instrument of environmental governance.
keywords includes (environmental justice, National Green Tribunal, sustainable development, enforcement)
INTRODUCTION
Since its Inception in 2010 the NGT(National green tribunal) has been India’s premier specialised environmental Court, designed to provide speedy and expert adjudication on complex ecological issues. Driven by the mandate of sustainable development. This article critically evaluates whether the NGT has served as a robust Guardian of the environment or merely a ‘toothless Tiger’ unable to bite effectively into entrenched polluting practices.
GENSIS AND JURISDICTION OF THE NGT
1. Legislative foundation-
The NGT act, 2010,it was enacted to fulfill India’s commitment under the Stockholm declaration, the Rio declaration, the constitution(17th Amendment) Act, 2003 which inserted article 21 relating to the protection of the environment the NGT act provides for:
Subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases involving substantial questions relating to Environment protection on, conservation of the forests, biodiversity & related the legal rights.
Jurisdictional supremacy over all courts, except the supreme court in, specified environmental matter.
Expert member composition, blending judicial and scientific acumen.
2.Mandate & Powers
Under section 14-19, the NGT can grant relief by ordering restitution of damaged environment award compensation, injunctive relief, and impose penalties.
It maintains a broad ‘discretionary & remedial’ jurisdiction to adopt flexible procedures tailored to environmental disputes. This framework envisages the NGT as a powerful guardian capable of decisive intervention.
THE NGT AS A GUARDIAN : SUCCESS STORIES
1.Restoration of river yamuna –
In MC Mehta v. Union of India (yamuna 1)
The NGT intervened to curb industrial effluent discharge & sewage inflows into the Delhi stretch of the yamuna. It ordered the municipal bodies to rehabilitate all sewage drains, constructed sewage treatment plants (STPs), & penalised defaulters. This led to demonstrated improvement in water quality, though enforcement gaps remain.
2. Protection of the Aravalli hills -In Meghalaya Industries Ltd. v. NGT, the NGT curbed rampant stone Mining in the ecologically sensitive Aravallis, ordering Restoration of illegal quarry sites & Rehabilitation efforts. Repeated monitoring by regulators ensued reflecting the tribunal’s push for ecological discipline.
3. Coastal regulation zones and mangroves- in Research Foundation for science, technology and Ecology v. NGT, halted 626 seawater ingress wells and mandated the re-mapping of coastal regulation zones(CRZs).It also initiated mangrove protection. highlighting the role of expert committees to preserve biodivers habitats.
4. Combating vehicular pollution – the NGT’s 2015 pronouncement introducing stricter vehicle emission, norms based on centralized testing in Re Vehicular Emissions ushered in mechanized pollution checks in major cities states were instructed to implement BS-4 standards ahead of schedule.
5. Tiger conservation and mining – in a landmark judgement the NGT prohibited mining in the buffer zones of tiger reserves and imposed fines on the government for environmental damages. This underscored the tribunal’s pro-wildlife stance and intersectoral reach.
THE NGT AS TOOTHLESS TIGER : KEY LIMITATION
Despites its achievements, the NGT has displayed limitations. That reflects structural, procedural, and systematic weaknesses.
1. Appointment and information gaps delays in appointing full time judicial and expert members have led to inconsistent bench strength. Further, the actual strength often falls below statutory prescriptions. Inadequate integration of local data, GIS mapping, pollution monitoring information and expert inputs has undermined adjudicatory quality.
2. Enforcement woes Despite rigorous orders, real-world enforcement remains weak. For example, persistent pollution in river yamuna and illegal mining in Aravallis showcase that the NGT’s teeth often fail to bite. State machinery, often resistant or lacking capacity, frustrates effective follow through.
3. Judicial Overreach Concerns- some overstepped by undertaking policy matters. Traditionally reserved for the legislature or executive. Criticism centres on the tribunal dictating action plans such as phasing out specific vehicle classes or detailed sewerage blueprints. the supreme Court has on occasion intervened to realign NGT orders to constitutional boundaries.
4. Appeals and Delays In Supreme Court- while the NGT offers expedited relief, its decisions are subject to appeal to the supreme Court under section 22 of the NGT act. The supreme court’s docket remains dogged, meaning enforcement of the NGT orders can be stayed for years. this dilutes the tribunal’s raison d’etre – swift justice.
5. Stakeholder resistance – the NGT’s remedy oriented approach often collides with industrial and state actors. These parties may leverage procedural tools-such as multiple interlocutory applications or obtaining indefinite stays – to stall orders. This indicates that the adversarial and dilatory aspects of legal processes still impact environment justice.
STRUCTURAL AND PROCEDURAL EVALUATION
1.Composition and capacity -The blend of judicial and scientific expertise is conceptually powerful. However, inconsistent member strength, frequent staff transfer , and limited technical infrastructure have reduced the tribunal’s operational capacity. the National Judicial Academy has criticized the NGT’s lack of scientific support system.
2.Cost effective access to justice – Legal Aid by NGOs and environmental activists, at NGT hearing is often subsidized or free, lowering access barriers. This democratization contrasts sharply with high litigation costs in regular courts. However , rising litigation costs in India’s broader system remain a challenge for marginalised litigants.
3.Flexibility v/s legal certainty – The NGT has effectively borrowed principles such as “polluters pays”, “precautionary principle”, and “sustainable development” from jurisprudence. This flexibility enables creative remedies. But, it raises concerns about legal certainty and uniformity in judicial outcomes across branches.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES:
International specialized NGT mirrors environmental jurisdiction like
० Land and environment Court of New South Wales(Australia)
० Council of state, France (section du contentieux)
० Courts for environmental matters, Quebec.
These courts, like the NGT, emphasize swift adjudication, expert inputs and restorative remedies. However, many enjoy stronger enforcement frameworks , such as enabling administrative coercive powers and specialized investigative cadres.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2024-2025)
1. In 2024,the NGT began piloting satellite based monitoring of forest cover and illegal encroachments in the Vindhya and ganges plains.
2. In March 2025, a new NGT ‘compliance wing’ was constituted with district level enforcement officers to track pollution data, identify violators, and insure timely follow up.
3. A working group recommended introducing a National ECO appellate board to review NGT compliance decisions and strengthen accountability.
While these steps signal Reform, their real world effectiveness will depend on statutory power and adequate resourcing.
CAN THE NGT BITE HARDER?
To transition from a procedurally robust yet practically frustrated guardian – toward a truly empowered regime – the NGT must confront core bottlenecks:
1.Statutory Enforcement Powers – the NGT act could be amended to empower the Tribunal to issue binding compliance timelines, designate enforcement officers and levy on the spot fines such statutory authority would mirror successful courts abroad.
2.Strengthen compliance wing – the 2025 compliance wing must be backed by statutory backing, recruitment of trained technical staff, GIS based enforcement systems, and budgetary autonomy. It should monitor court orders in real time and escalate violations directly to NGT branches.
3.Digitally enabled adjudication – Real time environment data (e.g.,from satellite, sensors, remote monitoring) should be admissible as evidence. The NGT could partner with ISRO, CPCB, and State Pollution Control Boards to streamline evidentiary infrastructure.
AGAINST CRITICISMS : A REJOINDER
In response to charges of overreach, the NGT asserts that environmental harm transcends executive inertia and legislative gridlock. Judicial creativity in delivering
Welfare oriented remedies is by design.And
Constitutionally justified under article 21.Courts have recognised that in the face of ecological crises, the Judiciary may “fill the vacuum” through public law activism.
Similarly criticism of voluntarism misunderstands the tribunal’s statutory mandate Section 15 empowers the NGT to impose monetary compensation and Mandate restorative works, that said, responsive mechanism like escalating monetary penalties, for non- compliance can refine punitive efficacy.
CONCLUSION
Two decades since its inception, the NGT has proven itself a formidable forum for environmental justice – a Guardian of rights, ecology and collective welfare. Its specialist bench, purposive jurisdiction , and remedy oriented order have been transformative. Yet, chronic gaps in implementation, enforcement , and operational capacity have dulled its impact. Hence the apt metaphor : a tiger with razor sharp fangs litters the court room, but the chains of Bureaucracy blunt its bite.
“In answering whether the NGT is a guardian or a toothless tiger, the resounding answer today is ____it has teeth but needs bite!”
FAQS
Q1. What is the National Green Tribunal (NGT)?
The NGT is a specialized judicial body established in 2010 to handle environmental disputes and ensure speedy justice in matters relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests.
Q2. Why was the NGT established?
It was created to provide an effective and expeditious mechanism for resolving environmental cases, reducing the burden on regular courts, and upholding the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Q3. What powers does the NGT have?
The NGT can hear civil cases related to environmental laws, pass binding orders, award compensation, and enforce legal accountability for environmental damage.
Q4. What are some major contributions of the NGT?
The NGT has played a crucial role in cases like banning old diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR, regulating sand mining, and controlling industrial pollution near rivers and protected areas.
Q5. What challenges does the NGT face?
The Tribunal often faces criticism due to lack of adequate manpower, limited financial autonomy, overreliance on government agencies for enforcement, and occasional non-compliance with its orders.
Q6. Why is the NGT sometimes called a “toothless tiger”?
Despite strong judgments, the NGT lacks independent enforcement powers. Its effectiveness depends on executive authorities, leading to delays and dilution of its impact.
Q7. What is the way forward for strengthening the NGT?
Greater autonomy, better resources, stricter enforcement mechanisms, and wider awareness of its role are necessary to make the NGT a true guardian of the environment.
