Supreme Court Holds NGT Cannot Penalise Officials Without Power To Prevent Breach; Sets Aside Personal Penalties

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih heard appeals challenging orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that punished municipal officials and imposed daily environmental fines for continued dumping at a solid waste management site in Bareilly. The appeals raised the narrow question whether the NGT could invoke Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to punish individuals for alleged failure to comply with its orders.

The Court allowed the appeal by the former Mayor, Dr. I.S. Tomar, and partly allowed the appeal concerning the Municipal Commissioner, while otherwise leaving the NGT's directions intact. The judgment emphasised that penal provisions must be strictly construed and that liability under Section 26 required proof that the person against whom enforcement was sought had the power to prevent the prohibited act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Sub-section (1) of Section 26 is a penal provision. Therefore, it must be strictly construed. The direction of the NGT was to stop the dumping of municipal solid waste. To prove the failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the direction, it must be established that it was the appellant who was responsible for dumping solid wastes at the site after prohibitory orders were passed by the NGT. A person can be said to have failed to comply with the direction issued by the NGT, provided it is shown that the person against whom a direction is issued has the power to prevent the act which was prohibited by the NGT. As it is not shown that the appellant had executive powers to direct the Municipal Corporation to stop dumping on the site, it is impossible to record a finding that there was a failure on the part of the appellant to comply with both orders." The Court also recorded the appellant’s media remarks, quoting his assertion that "the interest of common people has been defeated against the money power in this one-sided judgment" and that "when everything was pre-decided then what could we do," but accepted his unconditional apology.

Background Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, Invertis University and residents of Razau Paraspur filed Original Applications before the NGT challenging the establishment and operation of a municipal solid waste management plant at Razau Paraspur, Bareilly. The NGT reserved judgment on 28 May 2013 and directed, interimly, that no further municipal solid waste be dumped at the site. On 18 July 2013 the NGT allowed the applications, ordered closure of the plant, directed removal of existing waste within four weeks and restrained further dumping. When allegations surfaced that dumping continued despite the NGT’s orders, miscellaneous applications were converted into Original Applications and the NGT, in its order dated 24 October 2013, found intentional violation of its orders by the Mayor and the Commissioner, sentenced each to civil imprisonment till rising of the Court and imposed Rs. 5 lakh fines on each; it also imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation for the period 28 May to 27 July 2013. The Commissioner was also subjected to a Local Commissioner’s report that noted continuing dumping.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined service and party-status, executive powers, and the scope of Section 26. It observed that Dr. Tomar was not a party to the original proceedings, had not been served, and there was no material showing he had executive power to stop dumping. The Court held that penal measures under Section 26 could not be invoked against him and set aside the directions against him in Clause (ii) of paragraph 45 of the NGT order. The Court found that while the Municipal Corporation had admittedly failed to remove all waste and the monetary direction of Rs. 1 lakh per day was justified, there was no recorded finding of wilful default by the Commissioner; accordingly the sentence of imprisonment and the personal fine could not stand and were set aside. The rest of the NGT’s order, including directions for site restoration and constitution of an implementation committee, remained undisturbed. No precedent was overruled; the Court applied statutory construction and service principles to the facts. Interim stays previously granted by this Court were noted.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 775; Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5631-5633 of 2024 Case Title: Dr. I.S. Tomar v. Invertis University & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment