The Karnataka High Court recently annulled a ruling from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that mandated the Madras Engineering Group, a training unit of the Indian Army, to pay an environmental compensation of ₹2,94,63,000 for the alleged pollution of Ulsoor Lake in Bengaluru. A division bench consisting of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind highlighted that the order was issued without granting the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
In their ruling, the judges noted, “This Court is inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in limited context and in respect of specific area which is non-compliance of principles of natural justice.” They pointed out that the NGT confirmed its findings against the petitioners without considering their defense, essentially denying them a chance to respond to the claims of pollution.
The Union of India had approached the High Court after they were instructed by the State Pollution Control Board to pay the aforementioned compensation within a week, with the possibility of a closure order being enforced if they failed to comply. This directive originated from the NGT’s suo motu proceedings, initiated following a news article published in ‘The Hindu,’ which described the dire condition of Ulsoor Lake, noting it had become a “graveyard for fish.”
In their defense, the Union of India highlighted that a significant number of military personnel, including 51 officers, 267 Junior Commissioned Officers, and 1,093 soldiers, reside and train at the base near the lake. They argued that these personnel were not involved in the NGT’s proceedings, which raised questions regarding the legality of the tribunal’s actions.
The original NGT probe was triggered by inspections that indicated potential violations linked to a sewage treatment plant (STP) operated by the Madras Engineering Group. A Joint Committee, tasked with inspecting the site, reported that the STP was functioning without appropriate regulatory approvals and that the treated water was not within acceptable discharge limits. It recommended enacting environmental compensation based on its findings.
Despite the seriousness of the claims against them, the petitioners contended that they were unaware of the NGT’s actions until the Joint Committee arrived for an inspection. They, therefore, argued that they had been unjustly denied a chance to defend themselves in those proceedings.
The State Pollution Control Board questioned the petitioner’s right to bring the case before the High Court, suggesting that recourse could only be found at the Supreme Court. However, the High Court determined that non-compliance with natural justice principles justified its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench stated that while alternative remedies typically curtail the High Court’s involvement, exceptions arise when natural justice is violated.
In its decision, the court emphasized the importance of fair hearings and the necessity for evidence to be presented by defendants before reaching conclusions about liability for pollution. Consequently, it remitted the case back to the NGT for reconsideration, instructing that the Union of India be given the opportunity to present its defense and relevant documentation.
Nevertheless, the court instructed that the petitioners must initially deposit ₹1,00,00,000 with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. This deposit will remain contingent on the outcomes from the NGT’s fresh evaluation and ruling concerning the imposition of environmental compensation.
The case signifies a crucial intersection of environmental law, military operations, and legal rights, underscoring the court’s responsibility to uphold procedural fairness in adjudicating significant environmental issues.
