[BREAKING] Supreme Court upholds Section 3 of NGT Act; says Act does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction of High Courts

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, which gives the Central government power to establish the NGT [Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association v. Union of India]..A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy also held that the NGT Act does not oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the prayer to transfer the seat of the NGT's Madhya Pradesh Bench from Bhopal to Jabalpur was unmerited, noting that Benches are created as per exigencies.The judgment ruled the following:- The National Green Tribunal under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.- The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India.- Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central Government.- The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State. The prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected..The Court pronounced the verdict in a petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association challenging Section 3 of the NGT Act regarding establishment of the tribunal.The plea challenging the provision argued that it gives the Central government excessive, unchecked powers to notify NGT seats/benches without sufficient consultations with Chief Justices of High Courts, the Union Cabinet or the President, as is the constitutional norm for other such decisions related to the judiciary.Additionally, the plea prayed for an NGT Bench in each State, at the place of the Principal Bench of their High Courts, and in this regard a transfer of the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur. .The questions of law before the top court were:A. Whether the National Green Tribunal 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?.Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the location of the present NGT Bench in Madhya Pradesh was arbitrary, and that the direct appeals to the Supreme Court violate the basic structure of the Constitution and so the relevant provisions enabling the same must be struck down. Counsel cited the the difficulty of poor litigants in travelling to Delhi for appeals in environmental cases. The Attorney General for India pointed out that the NGT was created based on the recommendations of the 186th Law Commission Report, which mentioned the aspect about direct appeals to the top court. The AG added that remedy to High Court remains available and the Sections in this regard are thus not in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution..On the first question before it, the top court stated," ... [It is] noteworthy that nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and the power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act. The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as without any doubt, it is definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court’s exercise their discretion in tandem with the law depending on the facts of each particular case."Commenting on the case load of the NGTs as compared to administrative tribunals, the Bench said proportionality must be applied as the same is not comparable. The petitioners had relied on an observation made with regard to the pendency of cases in administrative tribunals to make a case for more Benches. Rejecting the prayer of the petitioners with regards to an NGT in Jabalpur, the Bench observed,"The strikingly small 107 cases in the NGT’s Bhopal Bench must also receive our due attention. These data do not provide for a reasonable basis to entertain a prayer for a NGT Bench at Jabalpur".It elaborated on the same by expressing that the prayer seemed to have been made only for the convenience of Jabalpur-based lawyers. "The low case load in the Bhopal Bench, do not match with the strident plea of the petitioners to locate the Bench at Jabalpur. This is therefore perceived as an attempt by the petitioners (who are practicing lawyers in Jabalpur), to primarily espouse their professional interest. No other rational basis is seen for the Association’s plea for relocation of the NGT Bench to Jabalpur from Bhopal," the Court said. Further, if NGT Benches are then established in all States, it would lead to "the judges and other members in these forums ... twiddling their thumbs.".On the third question, the Bench explained that the right to appeal before High Courts is "a creature of the statute and is not an inherent right". Issuing a writ of Mandamus to enable the same would impinge upon the principle of the separation of powers, it was held."The options available to a litigant to either move to the Supreme Court in a case where a substantial question of law arises or proceed under Article 226 or 227 must not also be overlooked. If necessary, a party can also approach this Court by way of an Article 136 petition. With such choices being available for a party, no rational justification is found for striking down Section 22 of the Act which provides for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court," the Court held. A litigating party must realise that in any event, even with High Court appeals they would have to appear in Delhi once the matter reaches the Supreme Court."Thus, the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under the NGT Act from the NGT’s decision cannot be seen as denial of access to justice to the litigants in the field of environmental law."Considering that litigants from all States would have to travel to Delhi for NGT appeals, and that the top court had itself recommended the exisiting system, the Bench held that the same is intra vires the Constitution. With regards to the excessive delegation contentions as to the setting up of Benches, the Bench noted that since the NGT Act became operational, the location and jurisdiction of the Tribunal's seats have been closely monitored by the Supreme Court. This being an adequate safeguard, the case of the petitioners was not made out, it was held. It was clarified that the present judgment would have no bearing on the merits and outcome of the challenges to the Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021..During a previous hearing in the matter, the Court had bemoaned the fact that every case before a lower court or tribunal was ending up before the top court.The Court had highlighted how the legislature has been "dumb" in providing statutory appeals against orders of the NGT directly to the Supreme Court."We do not want to use the word, but legislature has been dumb in this regard. We don't want to use the word but that is the word. We do not know what happened to Roger Mathew...every case ultimately ends up in this Court," Justice Joseph had said..The plea by the petitioners was argued by advocate Siddharth R Gupta and filed through advocate Mrigank Prabhakar.The Union government was represented by AG KK Venugopal with Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by advocate Sunny Choudhary.[Read Judgment]