By: Shahid Nazir Khan
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), India’s apex adjudicating authority on environmental matters, has increasingly come into the spotlight for its role in addressing ecological violations and ensuring environmental justice across the country. In Jammu & Kashmir, where fragile ecosystems intersect with developmental aspirations, the NGT’s authority is both a tool for public accountability and a subject of scrutiny, particularly when it comes to enforcing its decisions on state authorities and bureaucrats.
Established in 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, the NGT is a specialized body that adjudicates disputes relating to environmental protection, forest conservation, and enforcement of legal rights concerning the environment. Its mandate includes ensuring that state and non-state actors comply with the norms laid down in India’s environment laws.
For Jammu & Kashmir, where issues like river pollution, illegal construction along wetlands, and deforestation in ecologically sensitive areas such as Gulmarg and Sonamarg are pressing concerns, the NGT could play a pivotal role in holding violators accountable.
Over the years, there have been several petitions related to encroachments in Dal Lake, mismanagement of solid waste in Srinagar, and illegal mining in the Jhelum River basin that have come under the NGT’s scanner. But the question is: how effective has been this role? Has any adverse environmental activities ever been stopped?
The NGT’s powers are far-reaching. It can adjudicate environmental disputes involving the Jammu & Kashmir government, private industries, and individuals. Its orders are binding, akin to the judgments of a civil court. In several instances, the tribunal has issued directives to the Jammu & Kashmir Pollution Control Board (JKPCB), Srinagar Municipal Corporation, and other state departments to take remedial measures and enforce compliance.
The NGT can also award compensation to communities adversely affected by environmental degradation. For example, if residents of Khrew or Kathua suffer due to industrial pollution, the tribunal can direct the authorities or industries responsible to pay compensation and restore the environment.
In addition, with its suo motu powers recently recognized by higher courts, the NGT can initiate cases on its own without a formal complaint. This makes it a proactive tool in addressing environmental concerns that are often overlooked.
Despite these powers, the NGT faces several practical challenges when it comes to enforcing its orders, particularly against powerful bureaucrats and state agencies.
One of the primary limitations is that the NGT does not have direct contempt powers, unlike the High Courts and Supreme Court. If officials ignore or delay compliance with NGT orders, the tribunal cannot immediately penalize them for contempt—it must instead refer the matter to higher courts.
Furthermore, the implementation of its orders depends on the state machinery, which is often composed of the same bureaucrats and officials expected to act against violators or ensure compliance. This can lead to institutional inertia, delays, or diluted enforcement, especially when political or vested interests are involved.
Several activists in Jammu & Kashmir have pointed out that while the NGT has issued orders to halt illegal construction in floodplains of Srinagar or prevent encroachment into wetlands like Hokersar, enforcement on the ground has been patchy. In some cases, there have been reports of political interference shielding violators, making the NGT’s job harder.
A common point of confusion is whether fines imposed by NGT on state officials are paid from their personal funds or the public exchequer.
When the NGT imposes a fine on a government body, such as a department, JKPCB or a municipal corporation, the penalty is typically paid from public funds—essentially the state exchequer. This means the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill.
However, in instances where the NGT finds individual bureaucrats personally liable—due to wilful negligence, misconduct, or failure to comply with specific tribunal directives—it can impose personal fines. In such cases, officials are supposed to pay from their own pockets. But, in practice, many such fines are challenged in higher courts, and the matter drags on. There have also been instances where departments have later reimbursed the officials, unless explicitly barred.
As Jammu & Kashmir pursues developmental goals post its reorganization into a Union Territory, balancing growth with environmental protection remains a critical challenge. The NGT’s role is indispensable in this regard, offering citizens a legal platform to address ecological concerns.
However, experts argue that the tribunal’s effectiveness depends heavily on political will and administrative accountability in Jammu & Kashmir. Without the active cooperation of state authorities and independent enforcement mechanisms, NGT’s orders risk being reduced to paper directives.
The writer is a PhD student in environmental policy studies
