'Tribunal Can't Outsource Opinion, Base Decision On It': SC Rejects NGT Order

SC said tribunal has to arrive at its decision by considering all facts and circumstances, and cannot outsource opinion and base its order on it.

New Delhi:A tribunal has to arrive at its decision by considering all facts and circumstances, and cannot outsource an opinion and base its order on it, the Supreme Court has said and rejected an NGT order. While hearing the appeals challenging a April 2021 order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said the tribunal committed a "glaring error" as it based its decision only on the basis of the report of a joint committee.

"A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it. It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such an opinion," the bench outlined. The apex court therefore set aside the NGT's order, which had held a firm guilty of violating the Environment Protection Act norms and imposed a penalty on it.

The top court observed the NGT initially directed the firm's plant to be examined by the state pollution control board, which gave its findings and then the tribunal appointed a joint committee, on whose recommendations it acted and passed the order. "Another glaring error that has been committed by the NGT is that it has based its decision only on the basis of the report of the joint committee. The NGT is a tribunal constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010," said the bench in its November 27 verdict.

While observing the material on record, the top court noted the firm was neither made a party to the proceedings before the NGT nor before the joint committee, and when it filed an application for impleadment, the tribunal rejected it. "It further appears that even the joint committee appointed by the NGT neither gave any notice to the appellant nor an opportunity was given of being heard," observed the bench.

Notably, the top court said, "It is thus clear that the procedure followed by the NGT was totally unknown to the settled principles of natural justice." The tribunal, it noted, could not have proceeded further with the matter even at the initial stage without impleading the firm as a party respondent.

"The approach adopted by the NGT clearly smacks of condemning a person unheard," it said. While quashing the tribunal's order, the bench remitted the matter back to the NGT for a fresh consideration.