Resource Person: Dr. Nupur Chowdhury, Assitant Professor of Law, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance
Faculty Coordinators: Prof. Dr.Shobhalatha Udapudi, Ms.Deepa, Ms.Preetham
About The Event
The STAP event on "Exploring The Legitimacy of Suo Moto Actions of The National Green Tribunal India" was organized by the Course Faculty of Environmental Law and International Environmental Law viz., Prof. (Dr) Shobhalatha Utapudi, Dr. Amirthalingam S., Ms. Preetham Balakrishnan and Ms. Deepa Manickam. The organizing committee and the student community were elated to have Dr. Nupur Chowdhury, Assistant Professor of Law, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance as the Resource Person for the lecture.
The topic for the day was titled “Exploring Legitimacy of suo moto actions of the National Green Tribunal in India”. The National Green Tribunal was formed on October 18, 2010 by the Central Government under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. The stated goal of the Central Government was to create a specialised forum for the effective and expeditious resolution of cases involving environmental protection, forest conservation, and compensation for damages caused to people or property as a result of violations of environmental laws or conditions specified when granting permissions.
A suo moto action is a representative action filed by the Tribunal on behalf of affected people who are unable to represent themselves. A reference to Rule 8(5) of the 2011 Rules was made which mandates that the affected party should file a representative suit. The suo moto actions that were instituted during the first decade of the functioning of the NGT were constituting 10% of all the actions filed i.e., original applications and appeals. However, it gradually started rising in the following years clearly showing the usage of excessive administrative resources i.e., time and attention, to suo moto actions leading to a reduction in the same compared to the other applications. The NGT Southern Zone (SZ) has rewritten the legal threshold required for initiating a motion before the NGT provided under Section 14(1) and 2(m) of the NGT Act. Before this replacement, the NGT was required to check for the violation of any legislative provision as specified under Schedule I of the Act, however, the rewritten threshold does not require the checking resulting in the NGT taking up many suo moto cases. The situation is accentuated by the unreasonable and inconsistent orders of the NGT which is evident from the example of two case laws that was referred to.
Doctrinal analysis reveals that suo moto cases are exemplified by non-speaking orders that fail to reveal the clear reasons for undertaking such actions. Procedural justice and substantive justice have a cumulative impact on legitimacy. There are four changes to be carried out by the NGT in undertaking suo moto cases for it to be legitimate such as it is incumbent on the NGT to expressly enumerate the conditions for exercise of such powers which would be a first step towards limitation of such powers and also this addresses the arbitrariness of individual judges in pursuing such actions; the NGT would need to establish absence of representative litigants before it chooses to pursue suo moto actions; an institutional process has to be formulated including public notices on their website, reaching out through the district level administration to display and circulate public announcement of legal proceedings and solicit participation from affected parties and there should be a limitation on the number of suo moto actions, that only about 10-25% of cases admitted should be suo moto actions with the limit being towards the lower side of the continuum.
It was highlighted by the resource person, “Legal pendency in India is a reality, and the same creeping into the NGT’s jurisdiction is also a reality. At the cost of repetition, I would like to bring to the attention of the audience to the fact that, the suo moto actions of the tribunals are because of the non-availability of representatives of parties. The cases with proper representatives are easier to adjudicate upon and they are also closer to reaching the desired and the actual justice”.