MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. ANKITA SINHA & ORS.

p. 45 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

cases transferred to the NGT, emanated in the superior courts and it would be appropriate thus to assume that similar power to initiate suo motu proceedings should also be available with the NGT. 24.5 The NGT is a Tribunal with sui generis characteristic, with the special and all-encompassing jurisdiction to protect the environment. Besides its adjudicatory role as an appellate authority, it is also conferred with the responsibility to discharge role of supervisory body and to decide substantial questions relating to the environment. The necessity of having a specialized body, with the expertise to handle multi-dimensional environmental issues allows for an all-encompassing framework for environmental justice. The technical expertise that may be required to address evolving environmental concerns would definitely require a C flexible institutional mechanism for its effective exercise. IX. AUTHORITY WITH SELF-ACTIVATING CAPABILITY 25.1 Given the multifarious role envisaged for the NGT and the purposive interpretation which ought to be given to the statutory provisions, D it would be fitting to regard the NGT as having the mechanism to set in motion all necessary functions within its domain and this, as would follow from the discussion below, should necessarily clothe it with the authority to take suo motu cognizance of matters, for effective discharge of its mandate. E 25.2 The analysis for this segment should commence with Section 14 of the NGT Act and the same being of great relevance is being extracted hereunder, “ 14. Tribunal to settle disputes. - (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon. (3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is H

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.” 25.3 The Section 14(1) of the NGT Act deals with jurisdiction, andthe jurisdictional provision conspicuously omits to specify that an application is necessary to trigger the NGT into action. In situations where the three prerequisites of Section 14(1) i.e., Civil cases; involvement of substantial question of environment; and implementation of the enactments in Schedule I are satisfied, the jurisdiction and power of the NGT gets activated. On these material aspects, the NGT is not required to be triggered into action by an aggrieved or interested party alone. It would therefore be logical to conclude that the exercise of power by the NGT is not circumscribed by receipt of application. When substantial questions relating to the environment arise and the issue is civil in nature and those relate to the enactments in Schedule I of the Act, the NGT in our opinion even in the absence of an application, can self-ignite action either towards amelioration or towards prevention of harm. 25.4 In the same spirit, we find merit in the arguments that Section 14(1) exists as a standalone feature, not constricted by the operational mechanism of the subsequent subsections. The sub Section (2) of Section E 14 functions as a corollary and comes into play when a dispute arises from the questions referred to in Section 14(1). Likewise sub Section (3) thereafter, refers to the period of limitation concerning applications, when they are addressed to the NGT. Where adjudication is involved, the adjudicatory function under Section 14(2) comes into play. When it is a case warranting NGT’s intervention, or may be a situation calling for decisions to meet certain exigencies, the functions under Section 14(1) can be undertaken and those may not involve any formal application or an adjudicatory process. However, the later provisions may not work in similar fashion. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure unrestricted discharge of the responsibilities under Section 14(1) and that wide arena of NGT’s functioning. 25.5 The other pertinent provisions relating to, inter-alia, jurisdiction, interim orders, payment of compensation and review, do not require any application or appeal, for the NGT to pass necessary orders. These crucial powers are expected to be exercised by the NGT, would logically suggest that the action/orders of the NGT need not always

p. 47 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

involve any application or appeal.To hold otherwise would not only reduce its effectiveness but would also defeat the legal mandate given to the forum. 25.6 It may also be relevant to bear in mind that while dealing with contested cases, the NGT is required to pass “award” and “order” and the statute repeatedly uses the word “decision”. Therefore, it is appropriate to correlate the word “decision” to the NGT, in its non- adversarial or inquisitorialrole, as was suggested by the Law Commission and recognized in DG, NHAI (supra). 25.7 The duty to safeguard Article 21 rights cannot stand on a narrow compass of interpretation. Procedural provisions must be allowed to fall in step with the substantive rights that are invoked in the environmental domain, in larger public interest. The specialized forum is bestowed with the responsibility to ensure protection of the environment. To be effective in its domain, we need to ascribe to the NGT a public responsibility to initiate action when required, to protect the substantive right of a clean environment and the procedural law should not be obstructive in its application. In the context, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer speaking for a Division Bench in State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr.22 has so correctly prioritized the substantive rights and observed succinctly, “8. ...We must always remember that processual law is not to be a E tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.” 25.8 While discussing the NGT’s power and responsibility, it is essential to keep in mind the Principle 10 of theRio Declaration which speaks of three fundamental rights i.e., access to information, access to public participation and access to justice, as key pillars of environmental governance. Access to justice, may however be curtailed by illiteracy, lack of mobility, poverty or even the lack of technical knowledge on the part of citizens. Another deterrence is the likelihood of polluters/violators being powerful entities with adequate wherewithal to skirt regulations. Thus, it may not always be feasible for individuals to knock on the doors of the Tribunal, and NGT in such exigencies must not be made dysfunctional. 22 (1976) 1 SCC 719 H

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A X. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE 26.1 Tracing the origin of the Precautionary Principle, Scott Lafranchi in his treatise23 has expounded on the proactive role of the authorities in the following passage: - “Many consider the German development of Vorsorgeprinzip to B signify the true creation of the precautionary principle, in light of the attention it focuses on “long term planning to avoid damage to the environment, early detection of dangers to health and environment through comprehensive research, and acting in advance of conclusive scientific evidence of harm.”16 The C precautionary foundation of Vorsorgeprinzip has been described as an “action principle” that holds public authorities responsible for protecting the natural foundations of life and preserving the physical world for the present and future generations, and “‘can therefore be used to counter the short-termism endemic in all democratic, consumption oriented societies.’” D 26.2 The origin of the Precautionary Principle itself is rooted as an institutional obligation, by holding them primarily responsible for the environmental concerns and remedies. 26.3 As earlier seen, S.20 of the NGT Act which includes the term “decision”, in addition to “order” and “award”, also require the Tribunal to apply the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the statutory mandate being relevant is extracted: - “20. Tribunal to apply certain principles. - The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decisions or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.” 26.4 The principle set out above must apply in the widest amplitude to ensure that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposes but also for other ‘decisions’ or ‘orders’ to governmental authorities or polluters, when they fail to “to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation” 24. Two aspects must therefore be 23 Scott LaFranchi, Surveying the Precautionary Principle’s Ongoing Global Development: The Evolution of an Emergent Environmental Management Tool, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 679 (2005) 24 Vellore Citizens (supra), S. Jagannathan v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87, Karnataka H Industrial Areas Development Board v. C Kenchappa and Ors (2006) 6 SCC 371.

p. 49 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

emphasized i.e. that the Tribunal is itself required to carry out preventive A and protective measures, as well as hold governmental and private authorities accountable for failing to uphold environmental interests. Thus, a narrow interpretation for NGT’s powers should be eschewed to adopt one which allows for full flow of the forum’s power within the environmental domain. B 26.5 It is not only a matter of rhetoric that the Tribunal is to remain ever vigilant, but an important legal onus is cast upon it to act with promptitude to deal with environmental exigencies. The responsibility is not just to resolve legal ambiguities but to arrive at a reasoned and fair result for environmental problems which are adversarial as well as non- adversarial. It would be apposite here to refer to Justice Benjamin C Cardozo, of the United States Supreme Court, who in his seminal treatise, ‘The Nature of the Judicial Process’, stated thus, “It is true that codes and statutes do not render the judge superfluous, nor his work perfunctory and mechanical. There are gaps to be filled. There are doubts and ambiguities to be cleared. D There are hardships and wrongs to be mitigated if not avoided.” The above could be a pointer towards the preemptive functions of the NGT as a sui generis body. XI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ENVIROMENTAL E EQUITY 27.1 The conceptual frameworks of environmental justice and equity should merit consideration vis-à-vis the NGT’s domain and how its functioning and decisions can have wide implications in socio-economic dimensions of people at large. The concept of environmental justice is a F trifecta of distributive justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition.25 Environmental equity as a developing concept has focused on the disproportionate implications of environmental harms on the economically or socially marginalized groups. The concerns of human rights and environmental degradation overlap under this umbrella term, to highlight the human element, apart from economic and environmental G ramifications. Environmental equity thus stands to ensure a balanced distribution of environmental risks as well as protections, including application of sustainable development principles. 25 Schlosberg D, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford University Press 2009) H

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 27.2 Voicing concerns about the disproportionate harm for the poor segments, Lois J. Schiffer (then Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD), U.S. Department of Justice) and Timothy J. Dowling (then Attorney at ENRD) in their Reflections on the Role of the Courts in Environmental Law, wrote the following evocative passage on the concept of environmental justice, B “Environmental Justice, which focuses on whether minorities and low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of exposure to environmental harms and any resulting health effects. In the past ten to fifteen years, this issue has crystallized a grass-roots movement that combines civil rights issues with environmental issues, with a goal of achieving “environmental justice” or “environmental equity,” which is understood to mean the fair distribution of environmental risks and protection from environmental harms.”26 27.3 There is also a need to focus on the interconnection between principles of procedural justice and distributive justice. The concern is to create a system which is affirmative enough to balance the disproportionate wielding of power between polluters and affected people. “Environmental justice starts with distributive justice, or more accurately, distributive injustice. The rich and powerful derive the most benefit while suffering the least harm from environmentally harmful activities; conversely, the poor and minorities derive the least benefit but suffer the most harm.Further, those who benefit cause harm to the places where people “live, work, play, and go to school,” whereas the people who reside there do little or nothing to harm their community.” 27 When substantive justice is elusive for a large segment, disengaging with substantive rights at the very altar, for a perceived procedural lacuna, would surely bring in a process, which furthers inequality, both economic and social. An “equal footing” conception may not therefore be feasible to adequately address the asymmetrical relationship between the polluters and those affected by their actions. Instead, a recognition of the historical experience of marginalized classes of persons while accessing and effectively using the legal system, will allow for necessary appreciation of social realities and balancing the arm of justice. 26 Schiffer, L. J., & Dowling, T. J. (1997). Reflections On The Role Of The Courts In Environmental Law. Environmental Law, 27(2), 327–342. 27 Jeff Todd, A “Sense of Equity” in Environmental Justice Litigation, 44 HARV. ENVTL. H L. REV. 169, 193 (2020).

p. 51 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

27.4 The law must be interpreted in such a manner as to foster further development of existing legal concepts by incorporating this sense of equity. The issues which this Court has had the occasion to examine have highlighted the limitations of the mechanisms to reach to the heart of environmental concerns. This Court has previously moulded the jurisdictional jurisprudence in favour of larger societal interest, whether that be in the form of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ or widening the scope of locus standi. “The identification of potential environmental justice issues is very important in determining how our enforcement efforts are working in minority and low-income communities, and whether they are comparable to the enforcement efforts in other communities.” 28 C 27.5 In the backdrop of the above weighty concerns, this Court should advert to what Schiffer and Dowling have stated on the ‘Blindfold of Lady Justice’, which symbolizes “the ideal of administering equal justice to everyone who comes to our Courts, regardless of race, creed, or economic class.”29 The relevance of this concept is particularly apposite when we consider the inability of most marginalized communities, to access the legal machinery. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA 28.1 Proceeding with the above understating, we can comfortably place the NGT within the rubric of the larger environmental jurisprudence which has been informing this unique institution. The role of this Court in establishing the legal connect between matters of environmental concern and fundamental rights of citizens, has produced much academic literature. Amongst others, Armin Rosencranz and Shyam Divan in their writing- Environmental Law And Policy In India, have noted that the field of laws pertaining to environmental concerns has been a fairly fertile ground for judicial innovations by this Court; moving the concept of Environmental F law from the realm of torts to interlink it with fundamental rights 30, liberalizing the concept of locus standi in environmental matters, exercising suo motu powers to reign in polluters, using expert committees to monitor implementation of Court orders, etc. 31 28 Supra Note 26. 29 Ibid G 30 Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra & Ors V. State Of U. P. & Ors AIR 1985 SC 652,Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613, Virender Gaur Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577 31 See M.A.A. Baig, Environmental Law And Justice(1996). Domenico Amirante, Environmental Courts In Comparative Perspective: Preliminary Reflections On The National Green Tribunal Of India (2012). M.K. Ramesh, Environmental Justice: Courts And Beyond, Indian Jo. Of Envtl. L. 20(2002). H

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 28.2 By expanding the scope of Articles 21, 32, 48A, 51A(g), this Court has guaranteed the right to a pollution free environment for a holistic existence.32 Most crucially, the expansion of Right to Life under Article 21 by this Court has become a touchstone to determine many environmental concerns. In Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, this Court explicitly held the following, B “Right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.”33 28.3 Adopting international principles and moulding them to Indian C realities also became a focal concern, given the lacunae in regimes which may be exploited by those who may not have much concern for environmental degradation. Creation of the ‘Absolute Liability Principle’34 by this Court is a well recognized testament for this. It would thus be appropriate to state that much of the principles, institutions and mechanisms in this sphere have been created, on account of this D Court’s initiative. “The constitutionally-protected fundamental right to life and liberty has been extended through judicial creativity to cover unarticulated but implicit rights such as the right to a wholesome environment. . . .The right was recognized as part of the right to life in 1991. . E . . The court has since fleshed out the right to a wholesome environment by integrating into Indian environmental jurisprudence not just established but even nascent principles of international environmental law.”35 28.4 It has been noted that the Supreme Court adopted the role of an “amicus environment” by threading together human rights and environmental concerns, resultingly developing a sui generis environmental discourse.36 There were both procedural and substantive innovations made, by entertaining PIL petitions, seeking remedies,

32 G Maheshwara Swamy, N. Law Relating to Environmental Pollution and Protection. India, Thompson Reuters, Vol.I, Ed.5. 33 (1991) 1 SCC 74. 34 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1987 SCC (1) 395. 35 Rajamani, Lavanya. 2007. Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Law 36 H Supra, Note 19.

p. 53 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

including guidelines and directions in the absence of legislation. Many of A the landmark cases which hold the fort to this day, were in recognition of the ‘at risk’ nature of some populations. The creation of the NGT itself was due in large part to the need expressed by this Court for such a forum.37 28.5 Justice T.S. Doabia in Environmental & Pollution Laws in B India, has highlighted the larger societal concerns which have informed this Court’s deliberation when dealing with environmental matters, “The Supreme Court of India, in its interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has facilitated the emergence of an environmental jurisprudence in India, while also strengthening human rights jurisprudence. ...The Courts have successfully isolated specific environmental law principles upon the interpretation of Indian statutes and the Constitution, combined with a liberal view towards ensuring social justice and the protection of human rights. The principles have often found reflection in the Constitution in some form, and are usually justified even when not explicitly mentioned in the statute concerned.” 38 28.6 Environmental jurisprudence in India has therefore been intrinsic to advancing a democratic, welfare oriented legal regime. Issues E affecting the ecology and the environment must have a broad perspective and should have a society centric approach. Furthermore, the very nature of ecological and environmental issues has the propensity for rapid deterioration. Many such sensitive matters, as has been noted, stood transferred to the NGT, with the aim that those would be dealt with expediently with the required technical expertise and legal sophistication. F The proactiveness of the superior Court was surely expected to be seen in the Tribunal’s approach. 28.7 Analyzing the concept of the functioning of the NGT and its role within the broader concept of the environmental rule of law, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud speaking for a three judges Bench in H.P. Bus Stand G

37 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 176, Indian Council for Environmental- Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212, A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62. 38 Justice T.S. Doabia, Environmental & Pollution Laws in India, 3rd Ed., Vol 2 (2017). H

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A Management & Development Authority vs. Central Empowered Committee39 so succinctly said that, “40. The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools – conceptual, procedural and institutional to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges – of how they have been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have charted. The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi– disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognizes that the ‘law’ element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of lawyers and judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts.” 28.8 It is this environmental rule of law that has been encapsulated with the NGT’s creation at this Court’s behest. Professor Domenico F Amirante in a comparative analysis of similar bodies across the world, notes that, “With reference to the judicial enforcement of environmental law – which as we have seen should be considered an important condition not only for sustainable development but also for the sustainability of the legal environmental order – the National Green G Tribunal of India seems to be the most comprehensive and promising among the specialized environmental Courts created in Asia over the last decade.” 40 39 (2021) 4 SCC 309 40 Domenico Amirante, Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective: Preliminary H Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India, 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 441 (2012)

p. 55 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

The NGT therefore, is the institutionalizationof the developments A made by this Court in the field of environment law. These progressive steps have allowed it to inherit a very broad conception of environmental concerns. Its functions therefore, must not be viewed in a cribbed manner, which detracts from the progress already made in the Indian environmental jurisprudence. B X. CONCLUSION:

29Copy pinpoint29. Before we set out our conclusion, we acknowledge the able contribution of Mr. Anand Grover as amicus curiae, assisted by Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR who were requested to assist the Court on the central issue of suo motu jurisdiction of NGT. C

30Copy pinpoint30. The NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament’s intention is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be D explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT’s fabric. The NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum, and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court. E

31Copy pinpoint31. The environmental impacts on climate change are gaining increasing visibility in the shape of uncertain rains, species extinction, loss of natural habitat and so on. These also have the propensity to diminish fresh water resources, reduce agricultural yields and impact public health, particularly in the cities. The flooding and erosion in riverine and coastal areas are matters of serious concern. Governmental F assessment of India’s increased vulnerability to such changes in the near future also exists41 with many countries declaring climate emergencies and many others being urged to follow suit42.

32Copy pinpoint32. Therefore, the nature of ecological imbalance which is visible even in our own times may cascade, and the unforeseen injustice of the G

41 Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment, Climate Change and India: A 4X4 Assessment - A sectoral and regional analysis for 2030s, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 16 November 2010 42 Secretary-General’s Remarks at the Climate Ambition Summit. United Nations. United Nations, December 12, 2020. H

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A future may not be capable of being handled within the frontiers set forth today. The long term and very often irreparable environmental damage which are expected to be arrested by the NGT, urge this Court to advert to what is termed as the ‘Seventh Generation’ sustainability principle,or the ‘Great Law of the Iroquois’ (as it originates from the Iroquois Tribe) which requires all decision making to withstand for the B benefit of seven generations down the line.

33Copy pinpoint33. It is vital for the wellbeing of the nation and its people, to have a flexible mechanism to address all issues pertaining to environmental damage and resultant climate change so that we can leave behind a C better environmental legacy, for our children, and the generations thereafter.

34Copy pinpoint34. In circumstances where adverse environmental impact may be egregious, but the community affected is unable to effectively get the machinery into action, a forum created specifically to address such concerns should surely be expected to move with expediency, and of its own accord. The potentiality of disproportionate harm imposes a higher obligation on authorities to preserve rights which may be waylaid due to such restrictive access. It is also noteworthy that the “global impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on minority and low- income communities”. 43 Thus, an affirmative role, beyond mere adjudication at the instance of applicant, is certainly required for serving the ends of environmental justice, as the statute itself requires of the NGT. We cannot validate an argument which furthers uncertainty to justify the role of a spectator, if not inaction, and would most assuredly result in injustice.

35Copy pinpoint35. The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns. Such a society centric approach must be allowed to work within the established safety valves of the G principles of natural justice and appeal to the Supreme Court. The hands- off mode for the NGT, when faced with exigencies requiring immediate and effective response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice.

43 H Supra Note 23.

p. 57 Copy page pinpoint

SINHA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

36Copy pinpoint36. It would be procedural hairsplitting to argue (as it has been) A that the NGT could act upon a letter being written to it, but learning about an environmental exigency through any other means cannot trigger the NGT into action. To endorse such an approach would surely be rendering the forum procedurally shackled or incapacitated.

37Copy pinpoint37. When the Registry of the NGT does indeed receive a B communication or letter, including matters published in media, it may cause to initiate suo motu action by inviting attention of NGT to such matters in the form of office report. Such circumstances would however require a notice to be given to the sender of the communication or author of the news item, as the case may be, to assist the NGT in the course of C hearing and to substantiate the factual matters. It must also be said that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction does not mean eschewing with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In other words, the party likely to be affected should be afforded due opportunity to present their side, before suffering adverse orders. D

38Copy pinpoint38. One could admit to the argument of danger of suo motu jurisdiction, if the NGT was acting outside its domain. But when it is legitimately working within the contours of its statutory mandate and with procedurals safeguards clarified above in play, the nature of the trigger itself viz. a letter or a ‘suo motu’ initiation, cannot be the basis to curtail the role and responsibility of the specialized forum. E

39Copy pinpoint39. Institutions which are often addressing urgent concerns gain little from procedural nitpicking, which are unwarranted in the face of both the statutory spirit and the evolving nature of environmental degradation. Not merely should a procedure exist but it must be meaningfully effective to address such concerns. The role of such an institution cannot be mechanical or ornamental. We must therefore adopt an interpretation which sustains the spirit of public good and not render the environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective.

40Copy pinpoint40. Let us now hark back to the dialogues of the two protagonists, in Waiting for Godot, the play written by Samuel Beckett with which, we started this judgment. At the end of the deliberations, we find ourselves saying that the National Green Tribunal must act, if the exigencies so demand, without indefinitely waiting for the metaphorical Godot to knock on its portal. The preceding discussion advises us to answer the pointed question in the affirmative. It is accordingly declared that the NGT is H

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act.

41Copy pinpoint41. Having answered the common legal issue involved in all these cases regarding the suo motu jurisdiction of NGT, we direct delinking of these cases for now being heard separately on merits. Indeed, if the B cases(s) emanate from same/common order of NGT, such case(s) be heard together. Registry may do the needful and post the matters on 25.10.2021 for direction and fixing date of hearing, before the Bench presided over by one of us (Justice A.M. Khanwilkar). For the purpose of further hearing, the respective cases shall not be treated as part- heard before this Bench. C

Devika Gujral Legal issue answered.