The National Green Tribunal’s order in OA No. 73/2025 marks a pivotal shift in environmental enforcement by rejecting the notion that municipal corporations alone bear responsibility for ecological degradation. The Tribunal’s directive to implead previously overlooked state agencies underscores a doctrinal evolution: environmental remediation demands coordinated accountability across all custodians of public natural resources.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The matter arose from a news report in The Times of India dated 25.05.2025, highlighting severe pollution and neglect at Futala Lake in Nagpur. The lake, a public recreational and ecological asset, was suffering from uncontrolled solid waste dumping, untreated sewage inflow, unauthorized commercial structures, and contamination from nearby gaushalas. The applicant sought intervention under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to enforce environmental safeguards.
Procedural History
- May 2025: Media report triggers public concern and initiates NGT suo motu proceedings.
- November 2025: Joint committee submits report with seven specific recommendations targeting NMC, MPCB, and other stakeholders.
- January 2026: NMC files affidavit detailing remedial steps, including CCTV installation, waste collection contracts, and caution boards.
- February 2026: NGT conducts hearing and identifies critical gaps in institutional responsibility.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate cessation of pollution, restoration of the lake’s ecological integrity, and institutional accountability from all entities involved in its management and upkeep.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether environmental remediation under the National Green Tribunal Act can be fulfilled by a single municipal body when multiple statutory authorities hold overlapping or complementary responsibilities over the same ecological resource.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant argued that the public trust doctrine mandates that all entities with legal control over natural resources - whether municipal, state, or quasi-governmental - must be held jointly accountable. Reliance was placed on M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath to assert that no agency can evade responsibility by pointing to another’s failure.
For the Respondents
The respondents, primarily NMC and MPCB, contended that they were taking reasonable steps within their limited jurisdiction and budgetary constraints. They argued that issues like collapsed lake walls and sewage infrastructure lay beyond NMC’s purview and were the domain of the State Public Works Department and Nagpur Improvement Trust.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the fragmented approach to environmental governance. It emphasized that pollution control is not a siloed function but a collective duty under Article 21 and the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The Court noted that while NMC’s efforts - CCTVs, scavenger teams, and waste collection - were commendable, they were insufficient without addressing root causes: sewage networks, structural integrity, and gaushala regulation.
"The lake is not a municipal property but a public natural resource, and its protection cannot be outsourced to one agency while others remain unaccountable."
The Tribunal applied the principle of joint liability in environmental harm, drawing from Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, where the Court held that all actors contributing to degradation must be brought into the remedial framework. It found that the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Maha Metro, and the State Public Works Department were not merely peripheral but essential stakeholders whose inaction directly contributed to the degradation. Their exclusion from the proceedings rendered the remedial order incomplete and unenforceable.
The Court also scrutinized the lack of legal basis for imposing fines under NMC’s nuisance squad, directing clarification on statutory authority - a procedural safeguard reinforcing rule of law in environmental enforcement.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that environmental restoration requires the impleadment of all responsible agencies, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. It ordered the impleadment of Nagpur Improvement Trust, Maha Metro, and the State Public Works Department as respondents, and directed periodic reporting by MPCB on gaushala compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Environmental Remediation Demands Multi-Agency Accountability
- Practitioners must identify and implead all statutory custodians of a degraded environment, not just the most visible agency.
- Municipal corporations cannot be held solely liable for systemic failures involving state departments or specialized bodies like metro authorities.
- Failure to implead key stakeholders may render NGT orders unenforceable or subject to challenge.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable in Environmental Enforcement
- Any enforcement action - such as fines or seizures - must be grounded in explicit statutory authority; administrative discretion cannot substitute for legal power.
- Affidavits citing remedial measures must specify legal provisions invoked, not merely describe actions taken.
- Courts will scrutinize the legal basis of enforcement mechanisms, especially where penalties are threatened.
Public Trust Doctrine Requires Active Oversight, Not Passive Reporting
- The public trust doctrine imposes an affirmative duty on all custodians to act, not merely to report.
- Periodic reporting to MPCB or other regulators is insufficient without binding timelines, monitoring, and corrective mechanisms.
- NGOs and petitioners should demand specific, time-bound deliverables from each impleaded party, not vague commitments.
