‘Master of disposal’ or ‘committee raj’?: A look at Goel’s NGT tenure
Of the total 16,042 cases cleared by the tribunal during Justice Goel’s tenure, over 8,000 were disposed of by a bench led by him.
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel set foot in the courtroom for the last time as the chairperson of the National Green Tribunal on Thursday. It was around 11 am, there were no witnesses to his swan song except the two dozen law interns who filled half of the room for 50.
But the 69-year-old’s final sitting was all of 11 minutes. Only two cases were listed before the principal bench comprising four members. Justice Goel, a former Supreme Court judge, flipped through petition files on solid waste management and river pollution wearing his characteristic smile, consulted with his fellow bench members, nodded, dictated orders and left the courtroom. Neither of the petitioners were heard.
For those who have observed the NGT functioning in the last five years, it was not unusual.
In the last five years, the tribunal, which adjudicates environment cases, received 15,132 cases and disposed of 16,042, including those accruing from before. Considering high pendency in courts, the outgoing chairperson’s record is enviable. Justice Goel’s bench alone has disposed of 8,419 cases. His alacrity also had the stamp of approval from the central government.
Outside the courtroom, the common area bore a forlorn look. Only the staff was seen scampering from one corner to another. Neither environmentalists nor lawyers – except one – turned up to say goodbye to Justice Goel on his final day as chairperson. The NGT bar association has not held a farewell.
It was a far cry before Justice Goel took over in 2018. The courtroom of the principal bench, led by his predecessor Swatantra Kumar, would be brimming with activists, lawyers, journalists and government officials. But Justice Goel’s tenure has been marred with controversy. Over the past five years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly pulled up the NGT for various reasons, from not hearing parties to leaving zonal issues to branches, and how it dealt with Assam’s Baghjan oil and gas leak.
‘Committee raj’?
Most lawyers Newslaundry spoke to claimed that a “committee raj” was prevailing due to Justice Goel’s propensity to form panels comprising government officials and barely any non-government independent experts.
While NGT rules do not clearly specify who should be part of a committee, the Supreme Court this month called out the composition of a committee formed by the NGT. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was “disappointed” to note that a 10-member panel, which was to look into a fire caused by Assam's Baghjan oil well, included an official from Oil India Ltd.
But is there any truth to what lawyers told Newslaundry about Justice Goel’s tenure?
Newslaundry looked at the case list of the principal bench from May 8 to July 6 – the court was shut in June due to vacation. Of the hundreds of cases heard by the tribunal, there were 20 in which committees were formed – a total of 24 panels set up – by a bench led by Justice Goel. And of these 24, 22 included government officials from pollution control boards, the Central Pollution Control Board, the ministry of environment, forests and climate change, district administration, and government institutes. Notably, all the 20 cases came to NGT because of alleged inaction by government entities on air and water pollution, illegal sand mining, etc.
Consider these.
A petition was filed in 2022 over air and sewage pollution during construction of a housing society in Noida. The tribunal formed a joint committee comprising the Gautam Buddh Nagar district magistrate and an official from Uttar Pradesh’s pollution control board, or PCB.
Another case was related to illegal mining in Bageshwar in Uttarakhand. The committee comprised a PCB official, the district magistrate and divisional forest officer. The panel said 4,000 trees may have been damaged, and the NGT said “no mining may be allowed in the area which may be ensured by the concerned district magistrate,” read the order on May 9. The case was disposed of without any compensation or action against violators.
Environment lawyer Gaurav Bansal alleged that a “committee raj was prevailing” and “there was no adjudication”. “Most judgments have been copied from committee reports. The members of these committees formed by NGT were officials who were already in the dock for violations. If state pollution control boards or the central pollution control board were working fine, why would anyone approach the court?” he said, claiming that advocates and independent experts used to be part of such panels before Justice Goel’s tenure.
However, another environment lawyer Raj Panjwani disagreed, calling the former Supreme Court judge “fair” and “just”. He pointed out that the NGT has no expert body like the Central Empowered Committee in the Supreme Court to aid and advise it on environment issues. “In such cases, you have to rely on government bodies and officials with infrastructure at their disposal,” he said. NGT bench members include expert and judicial members.
But he said “it would be far more fair and transparent if an independent panel consisting of experts is constituted to carry out inspections and surveys to assist the tribunal”.
Additionally, the analysis of cases heard by the NGT from May 8 to July 6 showed that the principal bench disposed of several cases without waiting for the authorities’ status report. In a case related to the Ban Ganga river pollution in Jammu and Kashmir, the NGT on May 10 acknowledged the problem of legacy waste but closed the case while seeking a report from the authorities.
Support Independent Media
The media must be free and fair, uninfluenced by corporate or state interests. That's why you, the public, need to pay to keep news free.
Contribute
NL Digest
A weekly guide to the best of our stories from our editors and reporters. Note: Skip if you're a subscriber. All subscribers get a weekly, subscriber-only newsletter by default.
‘Orders of significance’
In a press release, the NGT shared its “orders of significance” in the last five years. One of the most important cases where Justice Goel was proactive was related to solid waste management. In this case, the NGT had held three rounds of interactions with chief secretaries of all states and union territories. For monitoring gaps, it levied a compensation of Rs 79,234.36 crore on the states and UTs. States file status reports on the progress from time to time.
Asked if compensation from the government instead of penalising officials would work as a deterrent, Justice Goel told the media, “Not 100 percent. But there is no other option. How do you identify violators?”
Justice Goel listed three key environmental challenges for the country: solid waste; industrial safety and carrying capacity assessment.
In addition, the tribunal has been monitoring some important issues such as rejuvenation of the Yamuna and Ganga. The tribunal has also taken suo motu cognisance of industrial waste, 351 most polluted rivers and 134 most toxic cities, among others.
The NGT has penalised violators on the basis of polluters’ pay principle relying on a formula devised by the Central Pollution Control Board.
Row over special benches
The NGT presser listed another “special initiative” of the former Supreme Court judge: formation of special benches for quick disposal of cases pending for more than five years. To realise this feat, the chairperson would decide which cases would be heard in the joint sitting of the principal bench led by him and the zonal bench concerned. The NGT has a total of five benches.
Newslaundry had earlier analysed how almost all cases heard by these special benches were cleared in a single sitting. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had warned the NGT of contempt for continuously hearing cases under this arrangement.
It was not only old cases that the special bench took up. Last year, an appeal against the controversial Nicobar integrated project, which was filed with the eastern bench, was taken up by a special bench. The appeal was disposed of with the tribunal forming a committee of government officials to look into the matter.
When asked about the Supreme Court’s adverse observation on special benches, Justice Goel said a bench was formed “if one or two members from the zonal bench are not able to take a decision” or a zonal bench was not functional.
When prodded further if the arrangement could be seen as an encroachment on powers of zonal benches, he said, “Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I have nothing to add…it’s an irrelevant question.”
The ‘good outcomes’ before
Before coming to the NGT, Justice Goel hit the headlines for “diluting” the SC/ST Act as a Supreme Court judge. One of his first decisions as the NGT chief was to rehear 18 key cases which were already heard and reserved for judgments by different benches. Later, he called “50 percent” of NGT lawyers “blackmailers”.
“He is the master of disposal,” Supreme Court lawyer Sudiep Shrivastava said.
Panjwani said, “In his personal conduct in the court, he was occasionally brusque, particularly when a party or an advocate made submissions which were beyond pleadings or legal position in law.”
Remembering the “good outcomes” under Goel’s predecessor Swantantra Kumar, environmentalist Vikrant Tongad said the NGT “could have done better”. “Now, nobody takes it seriously.”
Sheo Kumar Singh, who was earlier with the Bhopal bench of NGT, has been appointed as the tribunal’s acting chairperson. He was part of the principal bench on Thursday that heard two cases, along with Goel and two other members.
Meanwhile, on post-retirement, Goel told Newslaundry: “I will take up whatever life throws at me.”
How is India's environment ministry clearing major projects in virtual meetings?
Power NL-TNM Election Fund
General elections are around the corner, and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans together to focus on the issues that really matter to the voter. From political funding to battleground states, media coverage to 10 years of Modi, choose a project you would like to support and power our journalism.
Ground reportage is central to public interest journalism. Only readers like you can make it possible. Will you?