In the intricate framework of governance, procedural fairness is not just a requirement but also the cornerstone of justice. To ensure equitable and timely adjudication, the legislature has established specialized bodies to address issues arising out of specific laws that mandate the need of experts. The National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), one such body, was constituted vide the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“Act”) to handle cases concerning environmental protection, conservation of natural resources, and compensation for environmental damage. Its establishment marked a pivotal moment in environmental jurisprudence in India.

The Act came into force in 2010, and, under its Chapter III, it conferred expansive powers on the NGT, including the authority to regulate its own procedures under Section 19(2). However, as with any significant power, the responsibility to wield it judiciously is paramount. Section 19(1) of the Act mandates that these powers must be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

Given its statutory mandate, the NGT is expected to adjudicate disputes with thoroughness and adherence to these principles. However, practice often deviates from theory, as exemplified by a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3585). This case demonstrates how over-reliance on outsourced expert-committee reports, without independent judicial evaluation, undermines a tribunal’s credibility.

The dispute arose when the NGT imposed significant penalties on Grasim Industries for alleged violations under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The charges included the failure to install flow meters for emissions monitoring and the improper handling of hazardous by-products. While these issues undoubtedly demand strict enforcement, the Supreme Court, without delving into the merits of the accusations, found the NGT’s procedural approach fundamentally flawed. NGT had relied solely on a Joint Committee report, which, too, was prepared without involving Grasim Industries in the process. The company was denied an opportunity to contest the findings, and its request for impleadment was dismissed. Clearly, this was found to be violative of the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem, i.e., the right to be heard.

The Supreme Court, relying on its judgments in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, highlighted that expert reports, while indispensable in technical matters, cannot substitute judicial scrutiny by NGT. It stated that tribunals must critically evaluate evidence to ensure its reliability and relevance. By merely endorsing the Committee’s findings, NGT abdicated its adjudicatory role and reduced itself to a passive recipient of recommendations. Such practices undermine the judicial process and erode public confidence in environmental governance.

In quashing the NGT’s orders and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of procedural fairness as it directed the NGT to implead Grasim Industries in any future proceedings. This directive not only corrects the procedural lapses in this case but also serves as a broader reminder to adjudicatory bodies of their obligation to uphold natural justice, even in urgent and sensitive cases.

The judgment’s implications extend beyond the specifics of the case. Environmental governance in India faces the dual challenge of addressing violations promptly while maintaining procedural safeguards. Expedient processes that bypass fundamental rights may appear efficient but risk alienating stakeholders and inviting prolonged litigation. This judgment critiques a troubling trend among quasi-judicial bodies: excessive reliance on expert inputs without adequate scrutiny. While technical expertise is essential in environmental matters, it cannot supplant the tribunal’s duty to act as an impartial arbiter. Over-reliance on external committees creates a perception of bias and diminishes the tribunal’s role as an independent decision-maker. This approach is particularly problematic when significant financial and reputational stakes are involved.

Practically, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a wake-up call for regulatory and judicial bodies. Adhering to procedural fairness is not merely about compliance; it is about fostering trust and legitimacy. Notices must be issued to all affected parties, opportunities for representation must be granted, and expert findings must undergo rigorous scrutiny. Such safeguards not only ensure that decisions withstand legal and public scrutiny but also reinforce confidence in the adjudicatory process.

As environmental challenges grow more complex, the role of tribunals like the NGT becomes increasingly critical. Their mandate to deliver expeditious justice must be tempered with a commitment to fairness and transparency. In conclusion, the Grasim judgment is a timely reminder that substantive justice and procedural propriety are not mutually exclusive but interdependent. It sends a clear message that environmental objectives, no matter how pressing, cannot override the rights of affected parties to a fair hearing. By adhering to the principles of natural justice, adjudicatory bodies can achieve outcomes that are not only legally sound but also socially and morally just.

By - Vaibhav Mehra