Administrative Law – Entrustment of judicial functions to an administrative expert committee – Appellants filed an Original Application (OA) before the Western Zone Bench of the NGT against the dumping of municipal solid waste (MSW) at open landfill site – The OA was being continuously heard by the Western Zone Bench of the NGT and it had already issued significant interim directions – However, Principal Bench (NGT) disposed of the said OA filed by the appellants on the ground that in another OA the NGT had constituted Apex, Regional and State Level Committees to monitor the implementation of the SWM Rules – The OA filed by the appellants was thus closed with liberty to represent the case and ventilate all grievances before the appropriate committee – Whether the Principal Bench of the NGT correctly directed the appellants to now approach one of the Committees set up by it, rather than continue with the proceedings in the OA – Held: The committees are setup because the fact-finding exercise in many matters can be complex, technical and time-consuming, and may often require the committees to conduct field visits – These committees are set up with specific terms of reference outlining their mandate, and their reports have to conform to the mandate – Once these committees submit their final reports to the court/tribunal, it is open to the parties to object to them, which is then adjudicated upon – The role of these expert committees does not substitute the adjudicatory role of the court or tribunal – The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15 and 22 – Municipal Solid Waste (Handling and Management)Rules 2000 – Bio Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is first important to differentiate expert committees which are set by the courts/tribunals from those set up by the Government in exercise of executive powers or under a particular statute. The latter are set up due to their technical expertise in a given area, and their reports are, subject to judicially observed restraints, open to judicial review before courts when decisions are taken solely based upon them. The precedents of this court unanimously note that courts should be circumspect in rejecting the opinion of these committees, unless they find their decision to be manifestly arbitrary or mala fide. On the other hand, courts/tribunals themselves set up expert committees on occasion. These committees are setup because the fact-finding exercise in many matters can be complex, technical and time-consuming, and may often require the committees to conduct field visits. These committees are set up with specific terms of reference outlining their mandate, and their reports have to conform to the mandate. Once these committees submit their final reports to the court/tribunal, it is open to the parties to object to them, which is then adjudicated upon. The role of these expert committees does not substitute the adjudicatory role of the court or tribunal. The role of an expert committee appointed by an adjudicatory forum is only to assist it in the exercise of adjudicatory functions by providing them better data and factual clarity, which is also open to challenge by all concerned parties. Allowing for objections to be raised and considered makes the process fair and participatory for all stakeholders. Sections 14 and Section 15 entrust adjudicatory functions to the NGT. The NGT is a specialized body comprising of judicial and expert members. Judicial members bring to bear their experience in adjudicating cases. On the other hand, expert members bring into the decision-making process scientific knowledge on issues concerning the environment. [Paras 14 & 15][1016-E-G; 1017-C]
2. The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. Expert committees may be appointed to assist the NGT in the performance of its task and as an adjunct to its factH finding role. But adjudication under the statute is entrusted to the NGT and cannot be delegated to administrative authorities. Adjudicatory functions assigned to courts and tribunals cannot be hived off to administrative committees. The NGT has in the present case abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted judicial functions to an administrative expert committee. An expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT. This is not a delegable function. Thus, the order impugned in the appeal cannot be sustained. The consequence of the impugned order is to efface the meticulous exercise which was carried out by the earlier Benches. Valuable time has been lost in the meantime and crucial issues pertaining to the environment in the present case have been placed on the back-burner. [Paras 16 & 17][1017-G-H; 1018-A, D-F]
Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation (2019)
18 SCC 494; Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 669 –relied on.
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372: [2010] 9 SCR 227; State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 108: [2020] 6 SCR 837; Hanuman
Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401: [2019] 5 SCR 916 –referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.