National Environmental Tribunal and National Environmental Appellate Authority
The two earlier bodies, the Acts behind them and why the National Green Tribunal replaced them
In one minute
Before the National Green Tribunal, two Acts set up specialised bodies. The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 gave strict, no-fault liability for accidents with hazardous substances. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 created an Authority to hear appeals on environmental clearance.
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 repealed both Acts and took over their work.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Both (long answer and short answer)
Legal provision
- National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 (Act 27 of 1995): strict liability for damage from any accident while handling a hazardous substance, and a Tribunal for quick disposal of such cases.
- National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997: an Authority to hear appeals on environmental clearance.
- Section 38, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: repeal and savings. It repeals both Acts, dissolves the Authority when the Tribunal is established and moves its pending cases to the Tribunal.
- Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: relief and compensation, including for accidents with hazardous substances, in addition to relief under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Meaning and definition
A tribunal is a body outside the ordinary courts that decides disputes in a special field. An appellate authority hears appeals against decisions of other bodies. The two Acts set up one of each, for environmental matters.
- 1995The National Environment Tribunal Act provides for no-fault liability for hazardous substance accidents.
- 1997The National Environment Appellate Authority Act creates the Authority.
- LaterThe Supreme Court in Nayudu refers technical questions to the Authority.
- 2010The National Green Tribunal Act repeals both Acts.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995
The long title of the Act speaks of strict liability for damage arising from any accident while handling a hazardous substance. It also provides for a Tribunal for quicker disposal of such cases. The owner is liable to pay compensation for death, injury or environmental damage. The claimant need not prove that a wrongful act, neglect or default caused the harm. This is no-fault liability.
Example. A gas leak at a chemical store injures villagers. Under a no-fault scheme they can claim from the owner without proving carelessness.
Step 2: the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997
This Act created an Authority to hear appeals on environmental clearance. Its subject matter later appears in section 16 of the Green Tribunal Act, which lets a person appeal against an order granting or refusing environmental clearance.
Step 3: the Nayudu reference
In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, the Board had refused consent to a factory near two lakes. The Supreme Court explained the precautionary principle and the reversed burden of proof. It then referred two technical issues to the National Environmental Appellate Authority for its opinion within three months.
Step 4: replacement by the Green Tribunal
Section 38 of the Green Tribunal Act repeals both Acts. The Authority is dissolved when the Tribunal is established. Cases pending before it pass to the Tribunal, which decides them as if filed under the 2010 Act. The Tribunal's wider jurisdiction covers both appeals and relief and compensation.
Exceptions and special rules
Points to check in the Act
Reports say the Tribunal under the 1995 Act was never put into operation. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 later replaced both the 1995 and the 1997 Acts.
Don't confuse: the two bodies
| Point | National Environment Tribunal | National Environment Appellate Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Act | 1995 (Act 27 of 1995) | 1997 |
| Subject | No-fault liability for hazardous substance accidents | Appeals on environmental clearance |
| Fate | Repealed in 2010 | Dissolved in 2010 |
Inside the concept. Villagers injured by a toxic gas leak want compensation without proving fault. This was the field of the 1995 Act.
Just outside it. Fishers want to challenge a clearance given to a port. This was the field of the Appellate Authority.
Common mistakes
- Treating the two bodies as one. One dealt with accident liability, the other with clearance appeals.
- Saying they still exist. Both Acts were repealed in 2010.
- Confusing the Authority with the Green Tribunal, which has much wider powers.
Leading case laws
- A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)
Facts. A company sought consent to build a factory within 10 km of the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes. The Board refused. The appellate authority and the High Court ruled for the company.
Principle. The Court explained the precautionary principle and the reversed burden of proof. It referred two technical issues to the National Environmental Appellate Authority for its opinion within three months.
Why it matters. It shows the Authority at work and the need for expert bodies.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- The 1995 Act and no-fault liability.
- The 1997 Act and clearance appeals.
- Repeal by the 2010 Act.
10-mark answer
- Need for specialised bodies.
- Each Act, with its purpose.
- The Nayudu reference.
- Section 38 and the successor Tribunal.
- Comparison table.
Key points to remember
- National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995: no-fault liability for hazardous substance accidents.
- National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997: clearance appeals.
- Nayudu: technical questions referred to the Authority.
- Both Acts repealed by section 38 of the NGT Act, 2010.
Quick self-test
1. What did the 1995 Act deal with?
No-fault liability for accidents with hazardous substances.
2. What did the Appellate Authority hear?
Appeals on environmental clearance.
3. Which Act repealed both?
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.