For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

Access to justice is described by the United Nations Development Programme as "the capacity of individuals to seek and secure redress through official or informal institutions of justice, and in compliance with human rights standards."[1] Access to justice in regard to environmental issues include not only legal and administrative processes and remedies, but also informational access and involvement in decision-making. These "access rights" result from international commitments that aim to make environmental justice "green and sustainable."[2] In several international instruments, the significance of judicial institutions—courts and specialised tribunals to resolve environmental disputes—is acknowledged. According to the International Charter for Nature, "all persons shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or in group settings, in the formulation of choices that directly affect their environment, and shall have access to measures of redress when their environment has been harmed or degraded."[3] A legal framework for environmental protection and sustainable development was also adopted by the World Commission on Environment and Development Expert Group on Environmental Law, guaranteeing "due process and equal treatment in administrative and judicial proceedings to all persons who are or may be affected by trans-boundary interference with their use of a natural resource or the environment." By saying that "effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be granted by governments in environmental problems," Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, signed in 1992, strengthened access rights. The Aarhus Agreement, This strengthens the Rio Declaration's Principle 10 by establishing legally binding environmental obligations and improving access to justice. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative, regulatory, and other measures, including those to achieve compatibility between the provisions implementing the information, public participation, and access-to-justice provisions in this Convention, as well as appropriate enforcement measures, to establish and maintain a distinct, open, and consistent framework to carry out the provisions of this Convention, according to Article 1. The Convention included environmental procedures that place a strong focus on governmental responsiveness, accountability, and openness. The Convention was described as "the most ambitious initiative in environmental democracy under the auspices of the United Nations and a significant step forward in the development of international law" by Kofi Annan, a former secretary general of the United Nations.[6] The Aarhus Convention's Article 9 outlines specific steps for efficient judicial mechanisms and the defence of legitimate interests. The requirement of standing in terms of "sufficient interest," including NGO's, challenging acts by private individuals and public authorities, adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief, reasoned decisions that are publicly available, and appropriate assistance mechanisms to remove or reduce financial and other barriers to access to justice are all included in this.[7] We emphasise that the fragile state of the global environment requires the judiciary, as the guardian of the Rule of Law, to boldly and fearlessly implement and enforce applicable international and national laws, which in the field of environment and sustainable development will assist in alleviating poverty and sustaining society," according to the Role of Law and Sustainable Development adopted at the Global Judges Symposium held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 18-20 August 2002. We firmly believe that there is a pressing need to increase judges' capacity, all individuals who play a crucial role at the national level in the process of implementing, developing, and enforcing environmental law, including multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), particularly through the legal process, including prosecutors, lawmakers, and others.[8] By highlighting the role of the judiciary in the promotion of environmental law at the national level, the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] has played a crucial role. by putting into practise concepts from international environmental law, such as the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, and the intergenerational equity principle.[9] The Indian judiciary's role assumes increased significance in this context. Therefore, by examining power structures in a way that protects human rights and individual dignity, alleviates poverty, and ensures that the current generation enjoys quality of life without compromising the rights of future generations,[10] the Indian judiciary positively contributes to and promotes environmental law and sustainable development.

A comprehensive review of the literature is necessary for every research undertaking. By using a literature review, it is possible to eliminate the possibility of repeating the study and select an other area of enquiry. The literature review assists researchers in broadening the study or removing constraints from earlier work. Access to environmental justice in India has been the subject of numerous research conducted in India and elsewhere. A step in the right path access to environmental justice in India, specifically with reference to NGT, is a subject of relatively little research and literature.

As per author's knowledge no latest literature was found on this topic.

Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Judiciary: Scope and Limitation in Environmental Matter

India's rules and legislation have aimed to become comprehensive and strict, especially in response to the industrial accident in Bhopal in 1984.[11] Unfortunately, the implementation of environmental legislation has been unsuccessful due to conflicts and deficiencies in institutional systems. The primary causes of this failure[12] include political intervention or disinterest, multilevel corruption, careless or underperforming enforcement authorities, and personal gain.

A significant change in India's environmental landscape has resulted from the application of PIL in the interpretation of three constitutional articles, notably Articles 48A, 51A (g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The state is required by Article 48A, a directive principle of state policy, to maintain the nation's forests, wildlife, and environment. The policy prescription now has the legal standing to impose a responsibility on the government and courts to uphold environmental protection.[13] Every person is required by Article 51A (g) to have compassion for all living things and to safeguard and enhance the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. The definition of "citizen" has been expanded by the social obligation under Article 51A (g), allowing public-spirited persons, interested institutions, and non-governmental organisations [NGO's] to submit and progress PILs for environmental preservation.

As a fundamental right protected by Article 21, the right to life is guaranteed. The Indian Constitution's Article 21 provides the legal rationale for the coexistence of environmental conservation and human rights: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the method established by law." The Supreme Court ruled that a person's quality of life is just as important as their physical existence. Francis Coralie V. Delhi,[14]

"We believe that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the basic necessities of life, such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter over one's head, as well as facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself in various forms," Justice Bhagwati said.[15]

In Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana,[16] the court acknowledged that an unpolluted environment is one that is conducive to health and said: The right to life is safeguarded under Article 21 as a basic right. Enjoying life... containing the right to live with dignity...includes the preservation and protection of the environment, ecological harmony free from air and water pollution, and sanitation, without which life cannot be enjoyed. Environmental pollution would result from any illegal behaviour. Pollution of the environment, the ecosystem, the air, the water, etc. should be viewed as a breach of Article 21. Hence, the right to a healthy life includes the requirement of a clean environment, and it is impossible to live with dignity in the absence of such an environment. The State Government and the municipalities have a constitutional obligation to not only ensure and safeguard a proper environment but also to take the necessary steps to advance, safeguard, and improve both the natural and man-made environments.[17]

It's significant that the Supreme Court has implemented Articles 48A, 51A(g), and 21 by recognising their interdependence and has, when necessary, provided environmental matters with the necessary guidance. The right under Article 21 at the very least must be construed to include the same within its range since a responsibility imposed on the state under Article 48A is to be read as conferring an equivalent right on the citizens under Article 51A(g) [though couched in the language of "obligation"].[18] The Supreme Court said that "the environmental protection and conservation of natural resources has been granted a status of a basic right and brought within Article 21 of the Constitution of India" in Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P.[19] The Supreme Court stated that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution now recognises environmental protection and natural resource conservation as fundamental rights. Aside from this, Articles 48A and 51A(g) are fundamental to the country's governance and the state is required to apply them when passing laws. Additionally, these two articles must be taken into consideration when determining the scope and intent of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, including Article 21.

Court procedures created to assist persons seeking environmental justice who otherwise under current procedures would be unable to approach the court were greatly improved access to justice through PIL. "Procedural prescriptions are handmaidens, not mistresses, of justice," the court stated in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abulbhai Faizullabhai[20]. "Courts must evaluate (procession) deviances in the spirit of failure of fair play."

There are two ways that locus standi has been altered: through representative standing and citizen standing. Anybody with representative standing may bring claims for victims of human rights abuses who, due to their poverty, disability, or socially or economically disadvantaged status, were unable to petition the court for judicial enforcement of their fundamental rights. NGO's and environmental activists advocating for the underprivileged and indigenous people have used this technique to approach the courts. In contrast to an individual grievance,[21] a public grievance affects society as a whole and can be addressed through the citizen standing.

Another procedural tool in PIL is the appointment of impartial expert committees that offer scientific knowledge to assist judges in making knowledgeable decisions on environmental issues.[22] The court in A.P.Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu[23] acknowledged the significance of these expert panels in advising the court on a course of action while examining the scientific issues. The Supreme Court noted that "complex issues relating to the environment and pollution, science, and technology have been emerging in a significant number of matters coming before this court either under Articles 32 and 136 or before the High Courts under Article 226 and in some cases, this Court has been finding sufficient difficulty in providing adequate solutions to meet the requirements of public interest, environmental protection, elimination of pollution, and sustained development."

In a few instances, this Court has referred issues to professional or expert bodies, and the case is now being monitored by the professional authority. Affected parties have, however, voiced concerns and complaints regarding the scientific inconsistencies, lack of admissibility of the evidence, and diminution of the executive's statutory duty as a result of the formation of such panels.[24]

The Court uses another procedural tool, continuing mandamus, to carry out and oversee its PIL directives. Ordinarily, the court issues brief orders, whose violation results in fines or contempt of court.[25]

Despite benefits for obtaining environmental justice, the weak procedural requirements in PIL are not without external criticism. According to the opponents, the judiciary is taking on duties that have traditionally been handled by the legislature and the executive. There is no better example of the pervasive jurisprudential debate on the legitimacy of judicial lawmaking than in India, where the Supreme Court has been accused of becoming a very active legislator through a PIL.[26]

The Court is now susceptible to "forum shopping," a situation in which the administration of justice is influenced more by personalities than by institutionalised adjudication, as a result of the relaxation of the "standing rule." Some judges are now referred to as "green judges," "pro poor," or "progressive," while others who want media attention promote PIL litigation cases in their courtrooms. These judges promote the cult of individualism, which lessens the degree to which the doctrine of precedent may be predicted. Neither the whim of the individual nor the choice of a pro-party judge should be the basis for a decision.[27]

Trial time in India rivals and perhaps even tops Jardine v. Jardine in Charles Dickens' "Bleak House." If justice delayed is justice denied, India's capacity for justice is still severely limited. Delays have existed for a long time and can be dated to the Raj. It is due to court overcrowding, adjournments, missing papers, absent witnesses, and deliberate delay strategies used by both attorneys and parties.[28] In its 77th Report, the Law Commission of India observed that "delay is a product of too much business for too few judges and the supply of resources simply surpasses the demand."[29] The legal industry in India operates under the tenet that litigation is its main objective and main source of income. A glut of attorneys has led to strong rivalry for clients, especially in the lower-priced or more established segment of the legal services industry. Hence, providing clients with services like planning, negotiation, settlement, or arbitration does not result in costs that are equivalent to court appearances, reflect legal training, or reflect the role of the advocate as it is understood. In order to induce time extensions through adjournments, the filing of applications, changes, reviews, and appeals, court appearances may serve as the foundation for paying the customers. The Supreme Court judge D. A. Desai stated more than 30 years ago that "The members [advocates] may organise in groups to safeguard their interest, to advance their stance, and to achieve benefits for the organisation." The legal profession seems to be playing simply this one role.[30]

PIL could only have a tiny impact in such a constrained structure. In fact, when the Green Tribunal Bill was being discussed in Parliament in 2009, Shri Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, provided statistics in the Lok Sabha stating that 5,600 environmental cases were backlogged and awaiting resolution in the High Courts of India.[31] While being significant, PIL was severely constrained by the legal framework in which it operated. Change and innovation were required. The National Green Tribunal's formation played a role in it.

Composition of NGT

The NGT is a specialised body, and those who make decisions there possess the necessary training and technical and legal work experience. The court might so benefit from the scientific experts' abilities to make multidisciplinary decisions. The judges on the panel, including the Chairperson, are or have previously served as Chief Justices of High Courts, judges of High Courts, or judges of the Supreme Court of India.[32] The technical experts include individuals with backgrounds in the life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, or technology who have fifteen years of experience in the relevant field or administrative experience, which includes five years of actual work experience in an esteemed national institution or in the central or state government in environmental matters.[33]

The NGT also consists of a full-time Chairperson, not less than ten full-time judicial and expert members,[34] and up to twenty full-time members in total. This multifaceted and multi skilled body has the advantage of promoting a coherent and efficient institutional mechanism to decide on complex laws and principles in a uniform and consistent manner while also reshaping the approach to solve the environmental problem at its source rather than being limited to pre-determined remedies. Presently, the principal and regional benches are comprised of a total of five judicial and ten technical experts including the Chairperson. As each of the existing benches of the Tribunal receives at least 25 cases of violation every day, it is suggested that there is a need to increase the judicial bench complement in order to ensure effective and expeditious disposal of environmental cases.

The superior calibre of the Tribunal's judgements reflects the knowledge of the NGT benches. They provide good policy recommendations to enhance environmental management in addition to making decisions based on scientific data. For instance, the Tribunal provided guidance to be taken into account in instances relating to the granting of an environmental clearance for coal-based thermal power plants in Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha v. Ministry of Environment and Forests[35]. Among them is starting a scientific investigation into nuclear radiation in relation to coal ash produced by thermal power projects. The grounds for human habitation, the environment, and the ecology. Tribunal examined the overall impact of several thermal power projects in the vicinity on It established national guidelines for the amount of nuclear radiation that is acceptable in India's urban, rural, and environmentally sensitive areas, and it timed the commissioning of the thermal power project to coincide with the opening of a sewage treatment facility. The treated water was proposed to be issued for the operation of the project, failing which no consent to operate was to be provided by the pollution control boards. Additionally, the project proposer was expected to provide information on any potential nuclear radioactivity as well as the quantity of coal that will be used in the thermal power plant for any upcoming projects. The judgement thus shows that the presiding NGT will take seriously any procedural lapses, such as the gathering and review of basic scientific facts for the issuance of environmental clearance that may lead to dangers to the environment, ecology, and conservation of natural resources.

Jurisdiction

The National Green Tribunal Act of 2010 grants the Tribunal both original and appellate jurisdiction. In civil actions involving a significant environmental question, the original jurisdiction[36] is used. This includes enforcing any environmental legal rights as well as any issues that come up through the application of the laws listed in Schedule 1 of the Act.[37] An original application's content should first involve a legal dispute and then address a significant environmental issue. The tribunal has the authority to hear all civil disputes involving important environmental questions under Section 14 of the NGT Act. Here, environmental damage is not the only concern; legal rights enforcement concerns are also taken into consideration. The time restriction for registering a complaint is 60 days from the cause of the act, according to clause 3 of section 14 of the NGT Act. Nevertheless, in rare cases when the tribunal is certain that the complainant was hindered from filing the complaint, the time limit may be extended past 60 days. There are a total of four tribunals in India, located in the South, the North, the East, and the West.

Procedural Requirements

The principles of natural justice (PNJs) serve as the foundation for the NGT's reasoning and decisions.[38] The right to an opportunity to be heard as well as the prohibition on bias and speaking orders are among the PNJ's core values. They seek to prevent miscarriages of justice and ensure administrative accountability. When PNJs are violated, the administrative or quasi-judicial action is tainted, which affects third parties' rights. The Tribunal frequently deals with situations where the statutory authority makes a decision without giving all parties involved the chance to be heard, negatively affecting their rights. The case of M/s. Om Shakthi Engineering Works v. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board[39] illustrates the point. The appellant's engineering workshop was required to close by the pollution board due to noise pollution, and the electricity authority was also given the go-ahead to cut off the power. The pollution board neither provided the appellant with notice nor a hearing opportunity. The NGT reversed the closure order and restarted the electricity supply because the pollution board's action was against the PNJs and showed arbitrary and unreasonable behaviour.

The Tribunal has the authority to order payment of costs as it sees fit, even where the claim cannot be upheld or is baseless or vexatious. The NGT assessed the appellant in B. Prajapathi v. Ministry of Environment and Forests a cost of Rs. 50,000/- [£5,000] for engaging in frivolous litigation that amounted to an abuse of the tribunal process. According to the Tribunal, "the Tribunal is required to ensure effective environmental management and conservation, grant relief and compensation for damages to individuals and property, and deal with related concerns, while simultaneously ensuring sustainable development." In this regard, the jurisdiction of the tribunal should not be invoked for frivolous litigation that unnecessarily consumed the time of the tribunal without serving the Further, any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the Tribunal can file an appeal to the Supreme Court within ninety days from the date of communication of the order. The Supreme Court may condone the time limitation provided it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal. Lastly, no civil court has jurisdiction to accept an appeal in respect of any matter, which the Tribunal is empowered to determine under its appellate jurisdiction.

1.The UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998. 2.. http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/about/Sands, P. (2003). Principles of International Environmental Law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3. http://www.unep.org/delc/judgesprogramme/GlobalJ udgesSymposium/tabid/106158/Default.aspx 4. http://www.unep.org/delc/judgesprogramme/tabid/7 8617/Default.aspx; also see 5.http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/environ mental_law/?9282/Advancing-ConnectivityConservation-through-Law. 6. Rajamani, L. (2007). Public Interest Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Law, 19(3) 290; Srikrishna, B.N. (2005) Judicial Activism-Judges as Social Engineers, Skinning a Cat. SCCJ,8, 3. 7. Moog, R. (1992). Delays in Indian Courts. Justice System Journal, 16, 19-36.; See also, Galanter, M. (1989) Law and Society in Modern India. New Delhi: OUP. 8. Law Commission of India 77th Report (1978). Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts. 9. Desai, D.A. (1981). Role and Structure of the Legal Profession. Journal of the Bar Council of India, 8, 112. 10. Lok Sabha Debates http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/Result15.aspx ?dbsl=1803 See s 5(1) 0f the NGT Act 2010. At present, Honourable Mr Justice Swatanter Kumar is the Chairperson of the NGT. Upon being appointed as Chairperson, NGT, Justice Kumar resigned as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 20.12.2012.

1. Jayasundere, R. (2012). Access to Justice Assessments In The Asia Pacific: A Review of Experiences and Tools From The Region. Bangkok, Thailand: UNDP, 11.
2. Pring, G. and Pring C. (2009). Greening Justice: Creating and Improving Environmental Courts and Tribunals. Washington DC: Access Initiative, 6.
3. Article 23 World Charter for Nature 1982.
4. Article 20 Our Common Future, Annexe 1: Summary of Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development Adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law.
5. The UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998.
6. http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/about/Sands, P. (2003). Principles of International Environmental Law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. http://www.unep.org/delc/judgesprogramme/GlobalJ udgesSymposium/tabid/106158/Default.aspx
8. http://www.unep.org/delc/judgesprogramme/tabid/7 8617/Default.aspx; also see 9.http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/environ mental_law/?9282/Advancing-ConnectivityConservation-through-Law.
10. See, Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212; Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v C Kenchappa AIR 2006 SC 2038; M C Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
11. Divan, S and Rosencranz, A. (2001). Environmental Law and Policy in India. New Delhi: OUP, 2
12. Ibid at 3
13.T Damodar Rao v The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad AIR 1987 AP 171, 181.
14. AIR 1981 SC 746.
15. Ibid at 753.
16. (1995) 2 SCC 577.
17. Ibid at 580-581.
18. M C Mehta v Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 589; Jaswal, P.S. and Jaswal, N. (2009). Environmental Law. Faridabad ( Haryana): Allahabad Law Agency, 59
19. (2004) 3 SCC 549
20. AIR 1976 SC 1455
21. See Gill, above n. 16, 205-206
22. S. Jagannath v Union of India 1997 (2)SCC87; RLEK V State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 652; M C Mehta v Union of India Order dated 7 January 1998.
23. AIR 1999 SC 812.
24. Sahu, G. (2008). Implications of Indian Supreme Courts Innovation for Environmental Jurisprudence. Law, Environment and Development Journal. 4/1, 12-13; see Gill, G.N. (2013). Environmental Protection and Developmental Interests: A Case Study of the River Yamuna and the Commonwealth Games, Delhi, 2010. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Volume 6 Issue ½ Special Issue: Environmental Law.
25. See Divan, above n.14 at 146-147
26. 1 Baxi, U. (1983). How Not To Judge The Judges: Notes Towards Evaluation of the Judicial Role. JILI, 25,211; Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664.
27. Rajamani, L. (2007). Public Interest Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Law, 19(3) 290; Srikrishna, B.N. (2005) Judicial Activism-Judges as Social Engineers, Skinning a Cat. SCCJ,8, 3.
28. Moog, R. (1992). Delays in Indian Courts. Justice System Journal, 16, 19-36.; See also, Galanter, M. (1989) Law and Society in Modern India. New Delhi: OUP.
29. Law Commission of India 77th Report (1978). Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts.
30. Desai, D.A. (1981). Role and Structure of the Legal Profession. Journal of the Bar Council of India, 8, 112.
31. Lok Sabha Debates http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/Result15.aspx ?dbsl=1803
32. See s 5(1) 0f the NGT Act 2010. At present, Honourable Mr Justice Swatanter Kumar is the Chairperson of the NGT. Upon being appointed as Chairperson, NGT, Justice Kumar resigned as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 20.12.2012.
33. S 5(2)
34. S 4(1)
35. Order dated 20th September 2011,
36. Section 14(1).
37. The enactments in Schedule 1 include The Water Act 1974; The Water Cess Act 1977;The Forests (Conservation) Act 1980; The Air Act 1981; The Environment Protection Act 1986; The Public Liability Insurance Act 1981 and The Biological Diversity Act 2002.
38. s 19(1).
39. Order dated 10th April, 2012.
40. Writ Petition(C) No. 50 of 1998; Order dated August 9 2012.
41. Ibid para 38.