NGT’s 15-day ‘lag’ worries green fighters

NEW DELHI: Most National Green Tribunal petitioners approach

government agencies

first with environmental issues or policy and

move court

when they don’t hear from them. But NGT’s

July 19 order

to give agencies at least

15 days

before they can move court may lead to several difficulties for

petitioners

and even

derail

the

environment fight

.


In imminent cases or projects that are already under way, if agencies are given notice, the projects may be expedited, leading to a fait accompli situation where environmental damage has already done and, so, there is no case left to pursue. It can also leave petitioners vulnerable to threats or other pressure tactics.

Environmental activist Ramesh Agrawal, who won the Goldman Prize — an annual award given to grassroots activists — in 2014, expressed shock at the NGT order. “If we have certain complaints and the parties involved are say, the state pollution control board, the environment ministry or the collector, why should we always disclose (our grievance)? I have been shot at for opposing the environmental destruction caused by mining. Petitioners will be even more at risk if they reveal their opposition to big projects,” Agrawal said.

He added: “In most cases, if we have objections to a project, we write to the ministry about the environmental clearance before challenging it in court, but making it mandatory will make it extremely difficult for petitioners to raise an issue.” Chhattisgarh-based Agrawal had challenged the environmental clearance issued to a large coal mine in NGT, highlighted how public hearings were subverted to get permission. NGT revoked the permission to the mine in 2012, but Agrawal was allegedly targeted by industry supporters.

Petitioners who have approached NGT more than once say there are also practical difficulties in complying with the order. “Any conscientious petitioner will approach the government agency first before moving court because it is the executive’s job to implement norms. But giving them 15 days may be very difficult when something is under way. If, say, you want to highlight the environmental impact of a riverfront development project that is under way, in 15 days, a large part of the damage is already done and, then, your application will be considered fait accompli,” said Manoj Mishra of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan, whose application on pollution in the river is being heard in NGT.

Anil Sood, the petitioner in the application against the proposal to fell more than 16,000 trees for colony redevelopment projects, said: “If this was the case earlier, they would have felled most of the trees before we could approach court. There are cases where sudden, immediate action is needed. Any delay will only increase litigation and damage the environment.”

Chetan Agarwal, an environmental analyst who has been working on the Aravali conservation issue, cites a recent example where government officials are allegedly complicit in environmental damage. Additional chief secretary, Haryana, last year allegedly pushed forest officials into permitting felling of about 8,000 trees spread over 52 acres through a letter to forest department officials. Activists moved NGT as soon as they got information about the plans. On June 19, 2017, the case was listed in NGT and a notice was served to the chief secretary in Chandigarh on June 21. But on June 22, the additional chief secretary allegedly sent a letter to the principal chief conservator of forests, asking him to permit felling. “Trees over 52 acres were felled in the next three days even before NGT could hear the matter. You can imagine what can happen if they are given a 15-day notice. Such a process can be more damaging in cases of tree felling or water bodies being filled up, which require urgent remediation,” said Agarwal.

Vikrant Tongad, who has more than 15 petitions in NGT, said his organisation had been informing the government about environmental issues routinely. “But we are informed by people about environmental conflicts or destruction. If the matter is sensitive, the informants and activists are at risk. So, we swiftly move court because if a case is sub judice, there is a sense of being protected by the tribunal. If it’s not in court, both companies and complicit officials can pose a threat to us,” Tongad said.