Parliamentary panel flags critical operational gaps at NGT, suggests measures to improve its efficiency | India News
NEW DELHI: A parliamentary panel has identified critical operational gaps at the National Green Tribunal (NGT), including severe staffing shortage and reliance on contractual workers, inadequate digital infrastructure, prolonged pendency of cases across benches and weak enforcement mechanism, and recommended various measures to make it more efficient.The panel — parliamentary standing committee on law and justice — that tabled its report in Parliament during the recently concluded monsoon session also found it unusual that at a time when govt is vigorously promoting digitalisation, an institution as important as the NGT continues to function without a dedicated computer/IT section and the required technical posts.“The Committee, therefore, recommends that a dedicated Computer/IT Section, with appropriate technical posts and supporting staff, be established and operationalized at all the Benches of the Tribunal to ensure reliable digital infrastructure and effective use of technology in its functioning,” said the report.Though the panel appreciated the steps already taken by the Tribunal on e-filing, hybrid hearings and case information systems, it recommended that digital tools be further used to improve listing, case tracking, transparency and access for litigants from remote and environmentally vulnerable areas, so that the benefits such as quicker listing, fewer adjournments and better monitoring are fully realised in practice.During the deliberation, the Tribunal – established in 2010 as a specialised body for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases related to environmental protection, conservation of forests and natural resources – informed the Committee that a total of 55,619 cases had been received since its inception, out of which 49,740 had been disposed of and 5,879 cases were pending, as on June 30, 2026.The zone-wise pendency of cases before NGT as on May 31, 2026 shows that the highest number of pending cases was before Principal Bench at New Delhi (2,318), followed by Western Zone Bench at Pune (1,730), Southern Zone Bench at Chennai (887), Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata (587), and Central Zone Bench at Bhopal (277).The Tribunal, however, underlined that during the last five years, a majority of cases at Principal Bench, New Delhi, have been decided within the six-month period as contemplated in the NGT Act, 2010.The panel noted that the prolonged pendency may weaken deterrence, reduce the practical impact of remedial directions and permit environmental harm to continue or worsen over time, particularly where interim arrangements and partial compliance are allowed to persist without time-bound final resolution.“The Committee, therefore, recommends that a separate mechanism be evolved for identification and tracking of cases pending for more than three years, including a categorization of such matters based on the stage of adjudication in order to help distinguish unavoidable delay from remediable delay and permit more focused intervention,” said the report.It also emphasised the urgent need to fill vacancies of judicial and expert members so that the Tribunal can function in accordance with the NGT Act, 2010.The panel also highlighted weaknesses in enforcement of NGT orders due to dependence on outside authorities, and recommended stronger follow-up through action-taken reports, joint committees and clear responsibility. It further suggested clearer internal mechanisms for prioritising suo motu action on recurring and serious environmental problems, while respecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Noting the gap between public expectations and actual interventions of Tribunal in some high-visibility environmental issues such as Delhi’s recurring air-quality crisis, illegal mining and long-standing pollution hotspots, the panel suggested that institutional responses in such matters “need to be timely, visible and commensurate with their gravity”, while respecting statutory limits and the primacy of Supreme Court where it is seized of particular issues.
