NGT Penalties Under Scrutiny: A Look at Accountability for Environmental Non-Compliance.


23 May 2025 Environment Related Compliances >> COMPLIANCES   |   Environment Protection >> Environmental Law  

A recent judgment has shed light on the scope of the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) power to impose penalties under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The case, involving the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, and its former Mayor and Commissioner, raised crucial questions about individual accountability for failure to comply with NGT orders and the interpretation of penal provisions.

The appeals originated from a 2013 NGT judgment that found the Mayor, Dr. I.S. Tomar, and the then Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, Shri Umesh Pratap Singh, in violation of NGT orders concerning the dumping of municipal solid waste. The NGT had imposed civil imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the Mayor and Commissioner, and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation for environmental degradation.

 

 

The Core of the Dispute:

At the heart of the matter was the alleged non-compliance with two key NGT orders: one dated May 28, 2013, which prohibited the dumping of municipal solid waste at a specific site, and another dated July 18, 2013, which directed the immediate closure of a solid waste management plant and the removal of all municipal waste within four weeks.

Mayor's Appeal: Lack of Direct Responsibility and Executive Power

Dr. I.S. Tomar, the former Mayor, appealed the NGT's decision, arguing that he was not a party to the original applications and had no executive powers to direct the Municipal Corporation to stop dumping waste. His counsel emphasized that the Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, was the named respondent. While acknowledging controversial remarks made by the Mayor to the press, for which he had tendered an unconditional apology accepted by the NGT, his legal team contended that he could not be held responsible for the operational failure to comply with the dumping prohibition.

The court, upon consideration, found that Dr. I.S. Tomar was indeed not a party to the initial proceedings, and no material was presented to prove his direct responsibility for the continued dumping. Crucially, it was noted that the Mayor lacked the executive power to issue directions to the Municipal Corporation in such matters. The court held that for a penal provision like Section 26(1) of the NGT Act to be invoked, it must be established that the person against whom the direction was issued had the power to prevent the prohibited act. Consequently, the directions against Dr. I.S. Tomar in the NGT's judgment were set aside.

Commissioner and Municipal Corporation: Acknowledged Breach, Scrutiny of Intent

The Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner also appealed the NGT's judgment. The Commissioner argued that there was no finding of "willful breach" on his part. While the Municipal Corporation admitted that the entire municipal waste could not be removed as directed, acknowledging a breach of the July 18, 2013 order, the court examined the justification for the penalty imposed on the Commissioner.

The court upheld the NGT's daily fine of Rs. 1 lakh on the Municipal Corporation, finding it "fully justified" given the admitted breach and the ongoing environmental degradation. However, regarding the Commissioner, the court found that there was "no finding recorded that there was a wilful default on the part of the Commissioner." This lack of a clear finding on wilful default led the court to set aside the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on Shri Umesh Pratap Singh.

Implications for Environmental Governance:

This judgment clarifies the standards for imposing penalties under Section 26 of the NGT Act, particularly concerning individual responsibility. It underscores the importance of establishing direct involvement and executive power when penalizing individuals for non-compliance. While upholding the NGT's authority to levy fines on entities for environmental transgressions, the ruling emphasizes that penal provisions must be strictly construed, requiring clear evidence of responsibility and, in some cases, wilful default, before imposing severe penalties like imprisonment on individuals. This decision will likely guide future interpretations of accountability in environmental governance cases.


Section 26, NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT - 2010  

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010