The National Green Tribunal has issued a comprehensive order reinforcing the legal obligation to protect the Narmada River through mandatory floodplain demarcation, full operationalization of sewage treatment plants, and strict enforcement against encroachments and untreated discharge. This judgment establishes binding environmental governance standards that redefine accountability for state agencies and municipal bodies across Madhya Pradesh.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dr. P.G. Najpandey, sought compliance with prior orders of the National Green Tribunal concerning pollution of the Narmada River, particularly focusing on untreated sewage discharge, solid waste dumping, encroachments on floodplains, and non-functional or outdated Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in Jabalpur and other districts. The matter originated from Original Application No. 13/2021(CZ), which had already triggered a series of directives on river conservation.
Procedural History
- 2021: NGT issued initial directions in O.A. No. 13/2021(CZ) requiring STP installation and floodplain protection.
- 2023: State Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) submitted reports indicating partial compliance, with 12 of 16 STPs in Jabalpur operational.
- 2025: In O.A. No. 71/2023(CZ), the Tribunal issued detailed directions on floodplain zoning, pollution control, and ecological restoration.
- 2026: This Miscellaneous Application No. 15/2024(CZ) was filed to enforce compliance with prior orders and address ongoing violations.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought enforcement of all prior NGT orders, including demarcation of floodplains, closure of illegal encroachments, upgrading of STPs, and cessation of untreated discharge from dairies and industries into the river.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether state agencies are legally bound to implement floodplain demarcation based on a 25-year flood frequency and whether construction of STPs alone can absolve past environmental violations without operational compliance and monitoring.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and prior NGT orders to argue that mere construction of STPs does not equate to environmental compliance. They emphasized that untreated discharge from dairies and encroachments on floodplains continue to degrade the river’s ecology, violating Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the principle of sustainable development. They cited O.A. No. 139/2013(CZ) to underscore the persistent nature of violations.
For the Respondent
The State Pollution Control Board and CPC argued that 100% of the STP project at Bhedaghat was completed in 2023 and water quality samples were within permissible limits. They contended that environmental damage has been offset by infrastructure investment, and coercive action against municipal bodies for past violations should cease. They also highlighted ongoing monitoring and proposed upgrades to SBR technology.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the notion that construction alone can extinguish liability for past environmental harm. It held that compliance must be operational, continuous, and verifiable, not merely infrastructural. The Court emphasized that floodplains are not land to be developed but ecological buffers, and their demarcation must follow scientific thresholds - not political convenience.
"We direct that the floodplain zoning should be taken with reference to the flood of once in 25 years as against the other suggested figures or granted by the State Government of more years."
The Tribunal distinguished between remedial action (building STPs) and preventive duty (demarcating floodplains, banning plastic, stopping encroachments). It held that environmental compensation cannot be waived merely because an STP was built - the compensation mechanism remains intact until pollution load is demonstrably reduced. The Court also affirmed that the burden of proof for compliance rests squarely on the state, not the petitioner.
The Tribunal further reinforced that monitoring must be institutionalized, with quarterly reviews by the Chief Secretary and public disclosure of progress reports. It rejected the argument that municipal bodies should be shielded from liability, stating that accountability is non-negotiable under the Polluter Pays Principle.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that floodplain demarcation must follow a 25-year flood frequency standard, STPs must be fully operational and upgraded to modern technology, and past environmental violations cannot be absolved by infrastructure alone. All state agencies are directed to comply with the 13-point action plan, with quarterly monitoring and public reporting.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Floodplain Demarcation Is a Legal Mandate, Not a Discretion
- Practitioners must now argue that any development within floodplains without 25-year flood zone demarcation is illegal per se.
- Municipal corporations cannot grant building permits in flood-prone zones without NGT-approved zoning maps.
- Environmental impact assessments must now include hydrological modeling for 25-year flood recurrence.
STP Construction Does Not Erase Liability
- Merely installing an STP does not discharge environmental compensation obligations - pollution reduction must be proven through water quality data.
- Municipalities remain liable for past discharges until the Pollution Control Board certifies sustained compliance.
- Upgrades from UASB to SBR technology are now mandatory for non-compliant plants, not optional.
Monitoring Must Be Institutionalized and Transparent
- Quarterly reviews by Chief Secretary-level officers are now a statutory requirement for river conservation cases.
- Public disclosure of water quality and progress reports is legally enforceable, not discretionary.
- Failure to submit reports triggers contempt proceedings, not just administrative reminders.
