Summary
Two Jabalpur bar associations challenged the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, contending that Sections 14 and 22 oust the High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, that the direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 denies access to justice, that Section 3 is excessive delegation, and that under S.P. Sampath Kumar a bench must sit in every State at the principal seat of the High Court — at Jabalpur rather than Bhopal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition: judicial review under Articles 226/227 is part of the basic structure and remains unaffected; the direct appeal is constitutional and an appeal to the High Courts cannot be created by mandamus; Section 3 is guided by the Act's objects and this Court's supervision; and with only 2,237 cases pending nationwide and 107 at Bhopal, a bench in every State is unwarranted, Bhopal serving three States.
Issues
- Whether Sections 14 and 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 oust the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
- Whether a bench of the NGT must be established in every State, and at the principal seat of the High Court (Jabalpur rather than Bhopal), in view of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India.
- Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is ultra vires the Constitution and whether an appeal to the High Courts should be provided.
- Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act, empowering the Central Government to specify the ordinary place of sitting and territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, suffers from excessive delegation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3, 4(3), 14 and 22, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Nothing in the Act expressly or impliedly ousts the High Courts' writ jurisdiction, which the Attorney General conceded; Section 22's appeal to the Supreme Court on substantial questions of law is valid, having been recommended by this Court itself and by the 186th Law Commission Report; Section 3 is adequately guided by the Act's objects and the Court's monitoring of the location of benches in Union of India v. Vimal Bhai, so it is not excessive delegation. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 24, 26, 31, 32, 37, 38)
- Articles 32, 136, 226 and 227; Entry 13 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, Constitution of IndiaThe High Courts' power of judicial review and superintendence over tribunals is part of the basic structure and survives the NGT Act; litigants aggrieved by NGT orders may invoke Articles 226/227 subject to the Whirlpool discretion, and thereafter Article 136. The NGT is established under Entry 13 of List I to implement international environmental commitments and enforce the Article 21 right to a healthy environment. (¶¶ 9, 12, 14, 15, 24, 26)
Held
- Under L. Chandra Kumar the power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32 and the High Courts' superintendence over all tribunals within their jurisdiction are part of the basic structure; the NGT Act neither impliedly nor expressly ousts that jurisdiction, the High Courts have been entertaining petitions against NGT orders subject to the discretion recognised in Whirlpool Corporation, and the Union conceded the position. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- S.P. Sampath Kumar's direction for a permanent or circuit bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal wherever a High Court sits was predicated on the volume of litigation (over 48,000 pending cases, 17 benches and 21 circuit benches); by the principle of proportionality it does not apply to the NGT, whose aggregate pendency is 2,237 cases with disposals exceeding pendency and only 107 cases at the Bhopal bench. Benches in all 28 States and 8 Union Territories would leave members idle. Bhopal, the State capital, centrally located and well connected for Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan, is a sound locational choice; the plea for Jabalpur primarily espouses the professional interest of the petitioning lawyers. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- A statutory direct appeal to the Supreme Court does not extinguish the remedy under Articles 226/227; the Section 22 appeal is confined to grounds under Section 100 CPC, while jurisdictional and Wednesbury grounds remain available before the High Court, followed if necessary by Article 136. A right of appeal to the High Court is a creature of statute and cannot be created by mandamus without breaching separation of powers (R.K. Jain; Rojer Mathew did not hold direct appeals impermissible). The plea of inaccessibility would equally impugn the location of the Supreme Court itself and is irrational; the Court itself recommended environmental courts with direct appeals. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Section 3 is not excessive delegation: the Government specifies the place of sitting and territorial jurisdiction mindful of the demand for environmental litigation, guided by the objects of the Act and by this Court's directions, under whose supervision the benches were set up. The decision striking down the National Tax Tribunal Act (Madras Bar Association) is distinguishable — the NTT sat only at Delhi, took over the High Courts' Article 227 jurisdiction on substantial questions of law, had transferable members and an executive-dominated selection committee — none of which applies to the NGT. Challenges to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 were neither pleaded nor argued and are pending in other proceedings. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; Sections 3, 14 and 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 upheld — the Act does not oust the High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the direct appeal to the Supreme Court is intra vires, Section 3 is not excessive delegation, and the prayer to relocate the Bhopal bench to Jabalpur or to establish a bench in every State rejected. Parties to bear their own costs.