The National Green Tribunal has reaffirmed its role as a proactive guardian of environmental rights by ordering an immediate on-site investigation into an illegal stone crusher operating without statutory clearances near a vital river and residential area. This order underscores the Tribunal’s duty to enforce environmental norms even in the face of administrative inaction, reinforcing the constitutional right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, residents of villages surrounding the Renuka River in Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, allege that M/s Swain Stone Crusher, operated by Respondent No. 10, is functioning without mandatory statutory permissions including Environmental Clearance, Consent to Establish, and Consent to Operate. The unit is located within close proximity to residential habitation and directly adjacent to the Renuka River, a primary source of drinking water and irrigation for approximately 18 villages. The stone-crushing activities have caused severe air pollution through dust emissions, excessive noise levels, contamination of groundwater and surface water, and degradation of agricultural land. Residents report increased respiratory illnesses, skin ailments, and livestock deaths.
Procedural History
The applicants had previously lodged multiple complaints with:
- The District Administration, Surajpur
- The Chhattisgarh Pollution Control Board
- The Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board
Despite documented evidence and repeated representations, no enforcement action was taken, leading to the filing of this Original Application before the National Green Tribunal.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek immediate closure of the illegal stone crusher, restoration of the polluted environment, compensation for affected residents, and directions to ensure compliance with all environmental statutes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the National Green Tribunal can initiate suo motu investigative measures under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, when statutory authorities have failed to act despite clear violations of environmental norms and threats to the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to argue that the state has a non-delegable duty to protect the environment and that judicial intervention is warranted when administrative agencies exhibit gross negligence. They cited Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government - and by extension, the NGT - to take measures for environmental protection. The applicants emphasized the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as binding norms under Indian environmental jurisprudence, and contended that delay in enforcement amounts to a violation of Article 21.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file a written reply prior to the hearing. The Tribunal noted their absence and treated it as a waiver of the right to be heard, consistent with established practice in environmental litigation where statutory authorities fail to discharge their duties.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which grants it the power to adjudicate matters involving substantial environmental questions. It held that the failure of the Pollution Control Board and District Administration to act despite clear violations constitutes a breach of statutory obligation under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
"The Tribunal cannot remain a silent spectator when the environment is being degraded and the fundamental rights of citizens are being violated due to administrative apathy."
The Court emphasized that Article 21 encompasses the right to a healthy environment, as established in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India. It further held that the precautionary principle requires preventive action even in the absence of absolute scientific certainty, and the polluter pays principle mandates that the cost of pollution be borne by the operator. The Tribunal rejected the notion that procedural delays or lack of formal complaints absolve authorities of their duty.
The decision to constitute a Joint Committee was grounded in the Tribunal’s inherent power to seek expert reports under Section 19 of the NGT Act, ensuring factual accuracy before any final order. The directive for searchable PDF submissions reflects the Tribunal’s commitment to transparency and digital compliance.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that administrative inaction in the face of environmental degradation violates constitutional obligations and ordered the formation of a Joint Committee to inspect the site and submit a factual report within six weeks. The Tribunal affirmed its authority to intervene proactively where statutory bodies fail to act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Environmental Inaction Triggers NGT Intervention
- Practitioners can now cite this order to argue that NGT has inherent power to initiate investigations even without a formal complaint if environmental harm is evident
- Failure by Pollution Control Boards to act on documented violations may be challenged as a violation of Article 21
- Applications seeking closure of illegal units should include evidence of administrative neglect to strengthen the case
Site Inspections Are Mandatory Before Final Orders
- The Tribunal’s reliance on a Joint Committee sets a precedent: factual verification must precede enforcement
- Legal teams must prepare for potential site visits and ensure all documents (photographs, water test reports, medical records) are organized and digitally accessible
- Image-based PDFs will be rejected; submissions must be OCR-enabled and searchable
Polluter Pays Principle Is Enforceable Without Prior Conviction
- The Tribunal applied the polluter pays principle without requiring a criminal conviction or prior penalty
- This lowers the threshold for environmental liability - operators can be held accountable based on demonstrable harm, not just procedural violations
- Practitioners should include cost-of-remediation estimates in applications to support compensation claims
