National Green Tribunal (NGT):
By Satish Aparajit
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established on 18 October 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, with the primary objective of providing specialised, effective and speedy justice in matters relating to environmental protection, conservation of forests, and compensation for environmental damage.
The Tribunal was envisioned as a dedicated judicial body that would ensure environmental disputes are resolved efficiently and by experts familiar with the complex intersection of ecology, science, and law.
Key Features of the NGT
- Purpose
The NGT was created to adjudicate environmental disputes and enforce citizens’ legal rights to a clean and healthy environment. It was also intended to reduce the burden on higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts of India, which had long been handling environmental litigation.
- Guiding Principles
The functioning of the Tribunal is guided by three internationally recognised environmental principles:
- Sustainable Development – balancing economic development with environmental protection.
- Precautionary Principle – preventing environmental harm even when scientific certainty is incomplete.
- Polluter Pays Principle – ensuring that those responsible for environmental damage bear the cost of remediation.
- Structure and Procedure
The NGT is a specialised quasi-judicial body comprising both judicial members and expert members with environmental expertise. Importantly, the Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedural framework of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Instead, it operates according to the principles of natural justice, allowing for more flexible and expedited proceedings.
From Green Tribunal to “Non-Green Tribunal”?
India’s bureaucracy has historically demonstrated remarkable skill in producing comprehensive laws, rules, regulations, and by-laws across sectors. Many of these frameworks are derived from global best practices, adapted and “Indianised” to suit local realities.
However, in practice, such frameworks often contain gaps, discretionary provisions, or interpretive flexibility that allow room for administrative manoeuvring or political convenience.
It is in this context that one is compelled—perhaps reluctantly—to refer to the NGT as a “Non-Green Tribunal”. Why? Because in numerous cases where environmental clearances were challenged before the Tribunal, initial objections or critical observations are raised, only to be followed, within a few months, by final approvals of the same projects.
One of the most striking examples is the approval of the Great Nicobar Mega Infrastructure Project, a development plan estimated at nearly Rs 90,000 crore.
The proposal includes:
- An international trans-shipment port
- A greenfield international airport
- A large township and supporting infrastructure
The project will span a total footprint of approximately 166 square kilometres, resulting in the diversion of nearly 130 square kilometres of pristine forest land. This would involve the felling of millions of trees, many of them centuries old, fundamentally altering one of India’s most ecologically sensitive landscapes.
The project also threatens the survival and cultural continuity of the island’s indigenous communities, including the Shompen tribe and the Nicobarese people, whose lives are deeply intertwined with the island’s forests and ecosystems.
Great Nicobar Island is part of the Sundaland Biodiversity Hotspot, one of the four global biodiversity hotspots present in India. Its ecological significance is extraordinary:
- Over 650 species of plants, including angiosperms, ferns, gymnosperms, bryophytes and lichens.
- Around 180 species of corals.
- Critical nesting and feeding grounds for four species of marine turtles, including the Leatherback sea turtle.
- A key stopover within the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, a major migratory corridor for birds.
The island is also located in one of the most tectonically active zones in the Indian Ocean, making it highly vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis, as demonstrated during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Constructing massive infrastructure in such a fragile region raises serious questions about long-term ecological sustainability and disaster resilience.
The Government of India has justified the project partly on the grounds of national security and maritime strategy, arguing that the infrastructure will enhance India’s presence in the region and strengthen control over important shipping routes. While national security is undoubtedly important, invoking it as a justification for large-scale ecological transformation raises profound constitutional and environmental governance questions.
Critics argue that instead of engaging deeply with independent scientists, environmentalists and local communities, the NGT largely accepted the Union Government’s assertions at face value. This approach echoes earlier controversies such as the road-widening project for the Char Dham Yatra in Uttarakhand, where environmental warnings were repeatedly raised about landslides and ecological fragility. Many experts believe such projects are disasters waiting to happen.
Conflict of Interest?
Another troubling aspect is that some officials who originally granted environmental clearances while serving in government positions later became members of the NGT. This raises a serious question of institutional independence. Can individuals realistically overturn or critically review decisions that they themselves once approved? This appears to be a systemic design that weakens accountability while maintaining the appearance of oversight.
The book Island on the Edge: The Great Nicobar Crisis (2025), edited by Pankaj Sekhsaria, presents a powerful critique of the project. The collection of essays argues that the development plan represents a reckless gamble driven by economic ambition with insufficient regard for ecological integrity and human heritage.
Another issue is the protectors, defenders and conservators of forests in India, the Indian Forest Service officers have not been able to oppose any such projects. Though most agree in private but cannot raise their voice against the Government direction, that’s the sad part. Look how Rajaji National Park & Corbett are losing their green cover, reducing the area of operations for the wildlife drastically that has now resulted in man animal conflict and will continue to grow till the entire wild life will be wiped out which is not very distant.
How Government safeguards itself.
In January 2024, Forest Survey of India launched a site – Anavaran Deforestation Alert System – to inform the states fortnightly about the deforestation in any particular state. Unfortunately and very cleverly this site is not operational from November 2025.
What’s the solution and what we as Citizens can do?
If projects of this magnitude proceed without rigorous ecological scrutiny, India risks triggering irreversible environmental damage. The responsibility therefore cannot rest solely with institutions. Citizens, civil society organisations, and environmental advocates must remain vigilant, ensuring that development does not come at the cost of nature, indigenous cultures, and ecological balance. Economic growth is necessary, but it must never be pursued at the expense of the very ecosystems that sustain life itself.
(The author is a retired Wing Commander and Shaurya Chakra awardee.)
