JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Through this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and the District Bar Association, both with their registered offices at Jabalpur, have raised a challenge to the vires of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the NGT Act”), and pray for the following reliefs: -

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or any other writ of similar nature directing that the Bench of National Green Tribunal be set up at all the places where the principal seat of High Court is situated.

(b) Hold and declare that the proposed sitting up of Bench of NGT at Bhopal is not constitutionally and/or sustainable,

(c) Declare the provision of Section 14 r/w 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, as unconstitutional insofar as they purport to exclude the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.”

2. The issues to be considered in this writ petition are:-

A. Whether the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the NGT”) ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction under Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act?

B. Whether a seat of the NGT should be in every State? If yes, should they invariably be established at the principal seat of High Court, which in this case would be Jabalpur instead of Bhopal?

C. Whether the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the decisions of the NGT under Section 22 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution?

Whether an appeal mechanism be provided to the High Courts from the decisions of the NGT?

D. Whether Section 3 of the NGT Act is ultra vires to the Constitution as suffering from the vice of excessive delegation?

3. We have heard Mr. Siddhartha R. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Union of India is represented by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General for India together with Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General. The State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 2) is represented by Mr. Sunny Choudhary, learned counsel.

Arguments on behalf of Petitioners

4.1 The petitioners, who are espousing the cause of the Jabalpur based lawyers practicing before the High Court and the Civil Courts, contend that the Bhopal Bench of the NGT is located arbitrarily and the decision is inconsistent with the direction in S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124, Para. 8. where this Court observed that for ensuring the efficacy and efficiency of any Tribunal, its seat should be at a place where the principal seat of the High Court is situated. As the Bench of the NGT is set up at Bhopal for catering to the environment related cases covering three States i.e., Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan, the petitioners pray for setting up the Benches of the NGT at the principal seats of the High Courts in each of the three States and for their State of MP, the petitioners want it at Jabalpur.

4.2 According to the petitioners, environmental litigation is predominantly related to local factors and therefore, an easily accessible and available forum is necessary to be constituted, without requiring the litigants to move to distant places to secure environmental justice.

4.3 The petitioners argue that through incorporation of Section 14 and Section 22 in the NGT Act, the jurisdiction and the role of the High Courts under Article 226/227 is extinguished. This, therefore, has impacted the basic feature of the Constitution and as such the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 22 of the NGT Act should be struck down to the extent they divest the High Courts of their power as a superior Court.

4.4 Adverting to the power of the Central Government to identify the ordinary place of sitting of the NGT and specifying their respective territorial jurisdiction under Section 4(3)