Back
Supreme Court to Hear NGT Bar Association Plea on Member Before Sept 8
The has agreed to hear before an urgent plea by the Bar Association seeking an extension of the tenure of tribunal members, warning that three zonal benches may become non-functional once the current extension expires. The matter was mentioned for early listing before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, who directed that the case be taken up prior to the previously scheduled hearing on .
The development underscores a deepening crisis at the (NGT), where the expiration of member tenures threatens to paralyze judicial work across multiple jurisdictions. The Bar Association’s counsel argued that the NGT Act mandates benches to comprise more than one member, meaning that vacancies created by the lapse of tenures could bring entire benches to a standstill. “Now three benches of the NGT, including the Southern Bench and , will all have to stop functioning from because the NGT Act does not allow a . So it will completely cripple them,” the counsel submitted.
The plea highlights a systemic vulnerability in the functioning of environmental tribunals, which have long struggled with vacancies and delayed appointments. The Supreme Court had previously extended the tenure of certain NGT members, but that extension is set to expire on . The Bar Association warned that without a further extension or fresh appointments, the affected benches could remain inactive for several months, forcing litigants to travel to the in Delhi for hearings.
Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the newly enacted now governs the appointment process for tribunal members. However, the Bar Association’s counsel countered that the new law cannot resolve the immediate crisis, as appointments under that Act would take time. “But that cannot happen overnight. It will take some time for the appointments to happen. In the meantime, we cannot have one single Bench of the NGT functioning,” the counsel said, emphasizing the urgency.
The Bar Association also drew attention to , which contains a for appointment processes already underway. But counsel expressed uncertainty about how that provision would apply to the present circumstances and reiterated that even if new appointments are initiated, they cannot be completed before . “ is the last date for three benches,” the counsel stated, urging the court to either hear the matter before that date or extend the existing arrangement until the scheduled hearing on .
In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “Then we may list the matter before ,” signaling the court’s willingness to prioritize the issue.
Background: A Tribunal in Crisis
The , established under the Act 2010, is a specialized body tasked with expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation. It operates through a in New Delhi and several zonal benches across the country, each typically composed of a judicial member and an expert member. The requirement for is a safeguard against arbitrary decisions and ensures a balance of legal and scientific expertise.
However, the tribunal has been dogged by persistent vacancies and procedural delays in appointments. The current crisis stems from the expiration of the tenure of members appointed under the old regime, with the new yet to seat its first cohort. The Bar Association’s plea is the latest in a series of interventions seeking to prevent a breakdown of the tribunal’s functioning.
According to the association, if the is not granted, only one bench at the principal seat in Delhi would remain operational. “If this happens, only one Bench at the Principal Seat will function till the new appointments happen, which could be three months, which could be more,” the counsel submitted. This would effectively transfer the burden of all pending cases from the zonal benches to Delhi, creating a massive backlog and denying litigants local access to justice.
Legal Implications of Single-Member Benches
The statutory prohibition on single-member benches is central to the crisis. requires every bench to have at least one judicial member and one expert member. A is not authorized to hear any matter, meaning that if even one member of a two-member bench vacates, the entire bench becomes non-functional. The Bar Association pointed out that the and the are among those that would be affected.
The new does not alter this requirement; it merely streamlines the appointment process. However, the transition mechanism is unclear. Section 24(3) of the Act saves any ongoing appointment processes under the old law, but the Bar Association argued that this does not address the immediate vacancy crisis. Legal experts note that the situation exposes a legislative gap: while the Act was designed to prevent future delays, it offers no stopgap solution for existing vacancies.
Impact on Environmental Litigation
The potential shutdown of three zonal benches would have severe consequences for environmental litigation in India. Cases pending before the Southern, Western, and possibly other benches would be transferred to the in Delhi, overloading its docket and causing significant delays. Litigants, many of whom are local communities or small industries, would face the logistical and financial burden of traveling to the national capital.
The Bar Association warned that the crisis could cripple the entire tribunal system: “So three zonal benches come to a complete standstill and all matters will have to be heard in Delhi by the .” This centralization contradicts the very purpose of establishing zonal benches, which was to bring environmental justice closer to the people.
Possible Outcomes and Next Steps
With the Supreme Court agreeing to list the matter before , the immediate focus is on obtaining either an extension of the existing tenures or an allowing single-member benches to function temporarily. The Bar Association has urged the court to exercise its constitutional powers under to prevent a .
If the court grants an extension, it will provide a temporary reprieve while the government accelerates appointments under the new Act. However, if no action is taken, the NGT’s functioning could be severely compromised for months. The larger issue of tribunal appointments and the need for a robust mechanism to fill vacancies remains unresolved, and the Supreme Court’s intervention may set a precedent for how such crises are managed.
The legal community is watching closely, as the outcome will affect not only environmental cases but also the broader perception of tribunal governance in India. For now, the clock is ticking toward , and all eyes are on the Supreme Court.
