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.