Back
Supreme Court Allows Three NGT Members to Continue Beyond Age Limit Pending Appointments
In a significant aimed at preserving the operational continuity of the , the on Tuesday directed that two judicial members and one expert member of the tribunal may continue in office despite having crossed the maximum permissible age under the . The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, issued the direction to ensure that the NGT’s day-to-day functioning is not disrupted while completes the process of appointing their successors.
The order came after the flagged urgent concerns that the expiry of the members’ once-extended tenures on September 8 would render several zonal benches non-functional, as the NGT Act prohibits . The association had submitted that the Southern and Western Zone benches could be crippled without the continued presence of these members.
Background: The Tenure Crisis at the NGT
The NGT, established under the , is a specialised body tasked with adjudicating environmental disputes. Its members—comprising judicial members drawn from the higher judiciary and expert members from environmental sciences—are appointed for fixed terms. However, a transition to a new statutory regime under the created a period of uncertainty. Under , members who had not yet completed a full five-year term were eligible for , subject to age caps of 67 years for some and 70 years for others.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had extended the tenures of chairpersons and members of various tribunals whose terms were due between March and September 2025 until , as an . That deadline triggered the current situation for the three NGT members, who had already reached the maximum age limit and therefore could not benefit from the under Section 24.
The Court's Intervention
Addressing the bench, explained the broader picture: under , 248 members serving across different tribunals were eligible for an extension because they had not yet completed the five-year term. Of these, formal orders had already been issued for 229 members, and orders for the remaining 19 were being processed on the day of the hearing.
However, he pointed out a specific dilemma concerning the three NGT members. Having already attained the prescribed age ceiling, they fell outside the scope of the . Yet their departure would leave the NGT shorthanded, potentially stalling environmental litigation across several regions. The Attorney General assured the court that the selection process for fresh appointments would take approximately three months.
In response, the bench recorded its order:
"To ensure that day-to-day functioning of the National Green Tribunal is not hampered, we direct continuation of the two Judicial Members and one Expert Member as antill fresh appointments are made in their place."
The court also noted that the same approach should apply to other tribunals where the is required to make appointments under the 2026 Act. It directed the to proceed with the process of fresh appointments "without any delay."
Legal Implications of the Order
The order underscores a pragmatic judicial approach to transitional challenges in tribunal administration. By allowing members to serve beyond the age limit—a —the Supreme Court has effectively invoked its to prevent a . This is not a of the age cap; it is a narrow, necessitated by the gap between the old and new appointment regimes.
For legal practitioners, the ruling reaffirms the principle that must not be allowed to cripple institutional functioning. The reliance on the ’s submissions also highlights the important role of bar bodies in bringing functional exigencies to the court’s attention.
Impact on Environmental Litigation
The NGT handles a vast volume of cases relating to pollution, forest conservation, coastal regulation, and industrial compliance. A prolonged vacancy could have caused significant delays in urgent environmental matters. By ensuring continuity, the court has safeguarded the tribunal’s ability to hear cases without interruption.
Additionally, the court’s directive to expedite appointments across all tribunals signals a broader push for institutional stability under the . The Act aims to streamline the appointment process, but implementation bottlenecks have caused persistent vacancies. The Supreme Court’s monitoring in this case may serve as a catalyst for to accelerate recruitments.
What Happens Next?
The Attorney General indicated that the selection process for new NGT members is expected to be completed within three months. Until then, the three incumbents will continue to hold office. The court has also directed to issue formal extension orders for the other 19 tribunal members whose processing was pending.
The must now move swiftly to finalise appointments under the 2026 Act, not only for the NGT but for all tribunals where vacancies exist. Failure to do so could invite further judicial scrutiny, as the Supreme Court has made its expectation clear: appointments must proceed "without any delay."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s is a carefully calibrated response to an administrative gap. It balances the need for strict adherence to statutory age limits with the practical necessity of keeping a operational. For environmental lawyers and litigants, the decision provides temporary relief from the anxiety of a stalled tribunal. For the government, it is a firm nudge to expedite institutional reforms.
As the country transitions to the new tribunal framework under the 2026 Act, this ruling may be cited as a model for handling similar transitional crises in other tribunals—demonstrating that the judiciary will step in to prevent from undermining .
