The National Green Tribunal has reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial intervention in executive policy-making, particularly in environmental governance. While acknowledging the ecological threat posed by Prosopis juliflora, the Tribunal declined to direct the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive eradication policy, emphasizing that such decisions lie within the exclusive domain of the executive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shaukat Khan Kayamkhani, filed Original Application No.105/2026(CZ) before the National Green Tribunal Central Zone Bench in Bhopal, seeking judicial intervention to compel the State of Rajasthan to address the unchecked spread of Prosopis juliflora (commonly known as Angrezi Babool), an invasive alien plant species detrimental to native biodiversity, soil health, and water resources.
Key Facts
- Prosopis juliflora is a highly invasive species native to the Americas, introduced in India for afforestation and fodder, but now dominates vast tracts of forest, grazing, agricultural, riverbed, and wetland areas in Rajasthan.
- The species suppresses native vegetation, reduces groundwater recharge, and alters soil chemistry, leading to long-term ecological degradation.
- The applicant cited the Madras High Court’s directions in a prior case as a model for state action, urging similar comprehensive policy intervention in Rajasthan.
- No specific environmental rule or statutory provision was cited by the applicant as being violated by the State’s inaction.
- The applicant did not allege any arbitrary or mala fide conduct by the State in its handling of the species.
Procedural History
- 04.05.2026: Hearing conducted before the National Green Tribunal Central Zone Bench, Bhopal.
- No representative appeared for the Respondent State of Rajasthan or other respondents.
- The Tribunal proceeded ex parte on the basis of the applicant’s submissions and legal arguments.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought the following directions:
- Framing and notification of a comprehensive state policy for identification, control, and eradication of Prosopis juliflora.
- Conducting a state-wide survey and mapping of affected areas, including forest, agricultural, and wetland lands.
- Implementing a time-bound, district-wise eradication plan using mechanical uprooting with complete root removal.
- Restoring cleared areas by replanting with native, ecologically suitable species.
- Constituting a State-Level Nodal Agency or Task Force for coordination among departments.
- Enacting regulatory measures to prohibit further planting, transport, or propagation of the species.
- Mandating periodic compliance reporting.
- Ensuring active participation of Panchayats and local communities in identification and removal efforts.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contended that the unchecked proliferation of Prosopis juliflora constitutes an environmental emergency requiring immediate state intervention. He argued that the Tribunal, as a specialized environmental forum, had the authority and duty to direct policy formulation under its mandate under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The Respondents did not appear or file any counter-submissions.
The Legal Issue
Can the National Green Tribunal direct the State Government to frame, notify, and implement a comprehensive policy for the eradication of an invasive species, even in the absence of a specific statutory violation or demonstrable arbitrariness in existing policy?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant relied on the Tribunal’s mandate under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to adjudicate matters relating to environmental protection and conservation. He argued that the ecological damage caused by Prosopis juliflora is irreversible and warrants proactive judicial intervention. He cited the Madras High Court’s directive in a similar case as precedent for policy-level action by environmental tribunals. He contended that the Tribunal’s role is not merely reactive but also preventive and remedial in nature, especially where the executive has failed to act.
For the Respondent/State
No arguments were presented by the Respondents.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal undertook a detailed review of the jurisprudence on judicial review of executive policy decisions, drawing extensively from multiple judgments of the Supreme Court. It emphasized that while the NGT is a specialized tribunal with broad environmental jurisdiction, it is not empowered to assume the role of the executive in formulating policy.
"It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc."
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not alleged that the State’s existing approach to Prosopis juliflora was mala fide, discriminatory, or in violation of any statutory provision under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, or any other environmental rule. Nor had he demonstrated that the State’s inaction was arbitrary or irrational under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal further relied on Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration, Ms. Aruna Roy v. Union of India, and Union of India v. International Trading Co., to underscore that courts and tribunals cannot substitute their own policy preferences for those of the executive, even if the latter’s approach appears inadequate. The wisdom, advisability, or scientific merit of a policy is not subject to judicial scrutiny unless it violates constitutional or statutory norms.
"It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved."
The Tribunal held that the applicant’s prayers amounted to a request for the Tribunal to direct the State to adopt a specific policy framework - a function reserved for the legislature and executive. The NGT’s jurisdiction under Schedule I of the Act is confined to adjudicating violations of environmental laws, not to prescribing policy architecture.
The Verdict
The applicant’s application was dismissed. The National Green Tribunal Central Zone Bench held that the prayers seeking policy formulation, state-wide surveys, and mandatory eradication plans are beyond its jurisdiction. No directions were issued. The application was disposed of with no costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Policy Formulation Is Not Within NGT’s Mandate
- Practitioners cannot seek NGT orders directing states to create environmental policies, even for urgent ecological threats like invasive species.
- Relief must be framed as enforcement of existing statutory obligations, not as policy creation.
- Applications must identify specific violations of environmental rules, not general inaction.
Judicial Review Requires More Than Inadequacy
- Mere absence of a policy or perceived inefficiency does not constitute arbitrariness under Article 14.
- To challenge executive inaction, petitioners must show: (a) discriminatory treatment, (b) violation of a statutory duty, or (c) manifest irrationality.
- The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the State’s conduct is legally flawed, not merely suboptimal.
Strategic Litigation Must Focus on Statutory Violations
- In cases involving invasive species, focus litigation on violations of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, or Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
- Seek orders for enforcement of existing rules (e.g., prohibition on planting non-native species in protected areas).
- Use public interest litigation to compel compliance with existing statutory frameworks, not to invent new ones.
