Ordinary law is built for a plaintiff who can point at a defendant. Environmental harm rarely obliges.
The person injured by a contaminated aquifer may not be born yet. The factory that discharged into it may have closed. The link between an emission and a particular illness may be statistically real and individually unprovable. Run that through the normal machinery of civil litigation — identify the wrongdoer, prove the duty, establish causation, quantify the loss — and almost nothing is remediable.
Indian environmental law is largely a set of departures from that machinery, and on 19 September 2026 the people who built those departures were in one room.
The Prime Minister inaugurated the National Green Tribunal's two-day International Conference on 'The Future of Environment and Climate Dynamics' in New Delhi, and launched the NGT Mobile Application. The inaugural session was attended by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, the Attorney General for India, Shri R. Venkataramani, the Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Bhupender Yadav, and the NGT Chairperson, Justice Prakash Shrivastava. Delegates came from 17 countries, alongside the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
The tribunal itself
The National Green Tribunal was established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. India was among the first countries in the world — after Australia and New Zealand — to create a dedicated judicial body for environmental matters.
Structure. The Principal Bench sits at New Delhi, with four zonal benches: Pune (Western Zone), Bhopal (Central Zone), Chennai (Southern Zone) and Kolkata (Eastern Zone).
Composition. A Chairperson, judicial members and expert members. The expert member is the feature that distinguishes the NGT from an ordinary court and is the most commonly examined point about it. A bench hears a case with a judge and a technical specialist sitting together, because environmental adjudication requires reading effluent data, hydrology and emission inventories as well as statutes. Expert members are drawn from those with qualifications and practical experience in physical or life sciences, engineering or environmental administration.
Procedure. The Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor by the strict rules of evidence, and is instead guided by the principles of natural justice. This is deliberate: an environmental claim brought by a village should not fail on a pleading defect.
Jurisdiction. The NGT hears civil cases raising a substantial question relating to the environment, arising out of the implementation of seven scheduled enactments — including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. It is required to dispose of applications within six months as far as possible.
Appeal. An order of the Tribunal may be challenged before the Supreme Court within 90 days.
One point of continuing importance: the Supreme Court has held that the NGT may take suo motu cognisance of environmental matters, rejecting the argument that it can act only on an application before it. Our CDS/OTA polity notes on statutory commissions place the NGT within the wider family of specialised adjudicatory bodies.
The five doctrines
The Chief Justice's remarks amounted to a summary of Indian environmental jurisprudence, and the five ideas he named are the most examinable content of the entire conference.
The right to a pollution-free environment as a fundamental right. The Constitution does not mention the environment in Part III. The Supreme Court read it into Article 21 — the right to life — holding that life means life with dignity, and that dignity is not available in air and water that poison. Everything else in this list is downstream of that single interpretive move.
The precautionary principle. Where an activity raises a threat of serious or irreversible harm, the absence of full scientific certainty is not a reason to postpone preventive measures. Its practical effect is a reversal of the burden of proof: the developer must show the activity is safe, rather than the objector showing it is dangerous. Under ordinary legal principles the burden lies on the person alleging harm — and in environmental cases the alleging party is usually a community with no laboratory, facing a proponent who has all the data.
The polluter pays principle. The cost of remediation and compensation falls on the polluter, and it is absolute — it attaches to the harm caused, not to whether the polluter was careless. The reasoning is economic as much as moral: pollution is a classic negative externality, a cost imposed on others and absent from the producer's accounts. Making the polluter pay forces that cost back onto the balance sheet where it can influence behaviour.
Absolute liability. Laid down in M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987), the Oleum Gas Leak case, in the shadow of Bhopal. An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community, and is liable for harm without any of the exceptions available under the English rule of strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher — no defence of act of God, act of a stranger, or the plaintiff's own consent. The distinction between strict and absolute liability is asked frequently, and the answer is the exceptions: strict liability has them, absolute liability does not.
The public trust doctrine. Applied in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997). Certain resources — air, the sea, running water, forests — are held by the State as trustee for the public, not as owner free to dispose of them. The State may regulate their use; it may not alienate them into private hands in a way that defeats the trust.
Alongside Article 21 sit two express constitutional provisions, and the trio should be learnt together:
- Article 48A — a Directive Principle: the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
- Article 51A(g) — a Fundamental Duty: it shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Both were inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976. Neither is directly enforceable — but courts have consistently used them to interpret Article 21, which is how a non-justiciable direction acquires practical force.
Climate rights, the newer frontier
The Chief Justice noted that Indian climate jurisprudence has brought climate-related rights into sharper constitutional focus, recognising that the adverse effects of climate change can implicate fundamental rights relating to equality, livelihood and health.
This is the live edge of the subject. The Supreme Court has recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change as flowing from Articles 14 and 21 — a line developed in litigation concerning the Great Indian Bustard and the transmission lines crossing its habitat, a case we examined in our piece on the bustard's soft-release programme in Kachchh.
The logic is worth grasping because it is genuinely novel. Climate change does not harm everyone equally: it harms the poor, the coastal, the agricultural and the outdoor worker first and worst. A person whose livelihood depends on a predictable monsoon is differently situated from one who does not. That differential is what brings Article 14, equality, into a subject that had previously been argued only under Article 21.
The Attorney General pressed a related point — that global action must move beyond declarations towards practical and enforceable mechanisms, and called for a stronger international environmental regulatory framework.
The Minister's numbers, stated carefully
Shri Bhupender Yadav reported that non-fossil sources now account for 54.18 per cent of India's installed electricity capacity, that India ranks third globally in renewable energy installed capacity and is the world's second-largest solar growth market, that India's forest and tree cover stands at 8.27 lakh square kilometres, and that the UN FAO's Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 places India third globally in annual net forest-area gain. Looking ahead to UNFCCC COP31 at Antalya, he said India would continue to advocate climate action centred on equity, implementation and the needs of vulnerable countries.
One clarification is needed on the non-fossil figure, because press summaries routinely garble it and a candidate who repeats the garbled version in an interview will be corrected.
India has had two non-fossil capacity targets, not one:
- Under its 2015 NDC, India committed to 40 per cent of cumulative installed electric power capacity from non-fossil sources by 2030. This was achieved in 2021 — nine years early.
- Under its updated NDC of 2022, the target was raised to 50 per cent by 2030. This was crossed in 2025, again ahead of schedule.
The "nine years ahead" belongs to the 40 per cent target. The current 54.18 per cent figure is past the 50 per cent target. Two targets, two dates, one frequently conflated sentence.
A second caution, already familiar to readers of our economy notes: installed capacity is not generation. Non-fossil sources crossing half of installed capacity does not mean half of India's electricity is non-fossil, because capacity utilisation factors differ sharply between a solar farm and a coal plant. Any statement pair mixing the two words is testing precisely this.
What the conference could not resolve
An honest treatment should note the tension the assembled jurists were circling.
The NGT's effectiveness rests on the same features that attract criticism of it. Freedom from the CPC makes it accessible and makes its procedure less predictable. Suo motu powers let it act where no one has the resources to approach it and place it in the awkward position of both initiating and deciding. Expert members bring technical competence into adjudication and raise questions about the boundary between judicial determination and policy choice.
The deeper difficulty is one the Minister named from the other direction: the choice is not between development and environment, but between development that can be sustained and development that cannot. Every one of the five doctrines above is an attempt to price that choice correctly rather than to forbid it — and pricing is harder than forbidding, which is why the subject generates conferences rather than settlements.
🔑 Revision block
The event. 19 September 2026, New Delhi — Prime Minister inaugurated the NGT's two-day International Conference on 'The Future of Environment and Climate Dynamics' and launched the NGT Mobile Application. Present: CJI Justice Surya Kant, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, NGT Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava. 17 countries, plus UNEP and ADB. Four technical sessions.
The NGT. Established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. India among the first countries — after Australia and New Zealand — with a dedicated environmental court.
Benches. Principal Bench — New Delhi; Pune (West), Bhopal (Central), Chennai (South), Kolkata (East).
Composition. Chairperson + judicial members + expert members. The expert member is the distinguishing feature — a technical specialist sits with a judge.
Procedure. Not bound by the CPC, 1908 or strict rules of evidence; guided by natural justice. Disposal within six months as far as possible. Appeal to the Supreme Court within 90 days. May act suo motu, as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction. Civil cases with a substantial question relating to the environment under seven scheduled enactments — including the Water Act, 1974, Air Act, 1981, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
The five doctrines. Right to a pollution-free environment — read into Article 21. Precautionary principle — lack of scientific certainty is no reason to delay; reverses the burden of proof onto the developer. Polluter pays — remediation and compensation fall on the polluter; absolute, not fault-based; corrects a negative externality. Absolute liability — M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987), the Oleum Gas Leak case; no exceptions, unlike strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher. Public trust doctrine — M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997); the State is trustee, not owner, of air, sea, running water and forests.
The constitutional trio. Article 21 — right to life, read to include a healthy environment. Article 48A — Directive Principle, State to protect and improve the environment, forests and wildlife. Article 51A(g) — Fundamental Duty of every citizen. Both 48A and 51A(g) inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.
Climate rights. Adverse effects of climate change implicate rights under Articles 14 and 21 — climate harm is unequally distributed, which is what brings equality into the argument.
The Minister's figures. Non-fossil 54.18 per cent of installed capacity · third globally in renewable installed capacity · second-largest solar growth market · forest and tree cover 8.27 lakh sq km · third in annual net forest-area gain per the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 · next: UNFCCC COP31, Antalya.
The two targets, kept apart. 2015 NDC: 40 per cent by 2030 — met in 2021, nine years early. Updated 2022 NDC: 50 per cent by 2030 — crossed in 2025. And capacity ≠ generation.
🎯 Practice MCQs
Q1. The National Green Tribunal was established under an Act of: (a) 1986 (b) 2006 (c) 2010 (d) 2016
→ (c)
Q2. Which of the following is not a zonal bench of the NGT? (a) Pune (b) Bhopal (c) Kolkata (d) Hyderabad
→ (d) — the four zonal benches are Pune, Bhopal, Chennai and Kolkata, with the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
Q3. The principle of absolute liability was laid down by the Supreme Court in: (a) Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (b) M.C. Mehta v Union of India, 1987 (c) M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath, 1997 (d) Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India
→ (b) — the Oleum Gas Leak case.
Q4. Absolute liability differs from strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher primarily in that: (a) It applies only to government undertakings (b) It admits no exceptions (c) It requires proof of negligence (d) It applies only to water pollution
→ (b)
Q5. The public trust doctrine holds that: (a) All natural resources are privately ownable (b) The State holds certain natural resources as trustee for the public (c) Compensation must be paid before acquiring land (d) Public interest litigation may be filed by any citizen
→ (b) — applied in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath.
Q6. Article 48A of the Constitution is: (a) A Fundamental Right (b) A Directive Principle of State Policy (c) A Fundamental Duty (d) Part of the Preamble
→ (b) — Article 51A(g) is the corresponding Fundamental Duty.
Q7. Articles 48A and 51A(g) were inserted by the: (a) 24th Amendment (b) 42nd Amendment (c) 44th Amendment (d) 73rd Amendment
→ (b) — in 1976.
Q8. An appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal lies to the: (a) High Court within 30 days (b) Supreme Court within 90 days (c) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (d) National Human Rights Commission
→ (b)
Q9. The precautionary principle in environmental law principally has the effect of: (a) Requiring compensation after harm has occurred (b) Shifting the burden of proof onto the developer (c) Vesting resource ownership in the State (d) Exempting small industries from clearance
→ (b)
Q10. Consider the following statements: 1. The National Green Tribunal is bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. NGT benches include expert members alongside judicial members. Which is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
→ (b) — the NGT is guided by natural justice rather than the CPC.
📋 How this gets asked (PYQ pattern)
Environmental law sits at the intersection of two sections of the paper, and that is exactly why it repays preparation: one body of knowledge answers questions filed under both polity and environment.
The body question asks about the NGT's founding Act, its benches, its composition or its appellate route. The expert-member point and the "not bound by the CPC" point are the two most distinctive facts and therefore the two most asked. The bench list is worth memorising as a compass — Pune west, Bhopal central, Chennai south, Kolkata east, Delhi principal.
The doctrine question is the higher-value form and is asked in two shapes: name the doctrine from a description, or name the case from a doctrine. The strict-versus-absolute liability distinction is a standing favourite because it has a crisp one-word answer — exceptions.
The Article question pairs 48A with 51A(g) and asks which is the Directive Principle and which the Fundamental Duty, or which amendment inserted them. The 42nd Amendment is asked about so often, across so many topics, that its contents repay a dedicated half-page.
The figures question draws on whatever the latest official statement offered — forest cover, renewable capacity share, global rankings. These change annually, so learn the current number with its date attached rather than as a permanent fact, and keep the capacity-versus-generation distinction ready, because that is where the trap is set.
Preparing for CDS or OTA? Environmental questions are won in the polity section — the tribunal, the doctrine and the Article are worth more marks than the statistic. Build the base with our CDS/OTA polity notes, follow the daily CDS/OTA current affairs, and prepare with our faculty in the upcoming Cavalier courses in Delhi.
✍️ Written by Aditya Tiwari — Economy & polity faculty at The Cavalier. Reviewed by the Cavalier Faculty Desk.