Summary
The NGT directed States to reconsider Pollution Control Board appointments and laid down appointment guidelines. The Supreme Court held those appointment disputes outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction and set its order aside. Sharing concerns over unsuitable appointees, it directed State executives to frame appropriate rules or guidelines within six months and preserved High Court quo warranto remedies.
Issues
- Whether the NGT could adjudicate qualifications and appointments to State Pollution Control Boards.
- Who should frame recruitment requirements and how unlawful appointments could be challenged.
- Whether officials already removed automatically returned to office.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(m), 14 and 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Required a substantive environmental dispute within statutory jurisdiction and connected relief; the appointment issues did not satisfy that scheme. (¶ 16–21)
- Section 4(2), Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974Prescribed State Board composition and professional criteria, informing executive appointment duties and the ordered rule-making exercise. (¶¶ 4–5, 22–24, 33)
Held
- Appointments of Board chairpersons and members were not substantial environmental questions within NGT jurisdiction merely because poor appointments could impair environmental enforcement. In this context such challenges belonged before constitutional courts, including through quo warranto; statutory purpose did not confer an unlimited appointment-review jurisdiction. (¶ 17–21)
- Detailed recruitment qualifications and guidelines were for the executive to frame, guided by statute, constitutional obligations, judicial principles and expert reports. State discretion was constrained by institutional needs and professional competence, rather than an unrestricted power to reward chosen appointees. (¶ 22–32)
- All States were directed to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months and ensure suitable professionals and experts were appointed. Public-spirited persons remained free to seek quo warranto in the appropriate High Court against appointees failing statutory or constitutional requirements. (¶ 33)
- Officials already removed pursuant to the NGT order had an independent cause of action against their State governments. Setting aside the NGT decision did not itself reverse those removals; separate appropriate proceedings remained available. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals disposed of setting aside the NGT order; State executives directed to frame appointment guidelines or rules within six months. High Court challenges and removed officials’ independent remedies preserved.