The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for overstepping its legal boundaries and violating established legal principles. The apex court's remarks came while quashing an NGT order that directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate a company already facing a ₹50 crore fine for pollution. The Supreme Court observed that the NGT's ruling was in violation of the law and beyond its jurisdiction, stating that the "application of mind is not proportionate to the number of pages" in the 145-page order.

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed concern over the NGT's decision to involve the ED in a pollution case where no scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was apparent. The court highlighted that it had previously questioned the NGT's authority to direct the prosecution of individuals under the PMLA. The Supreme Court clarified that the NGT's powers are defined by Section 15 of the NGT Act, emphasizing that while courts constituted under the PMLA or constitutional courts possess such authority, the NGT does not. The NGT's mandate is to ensure the effective and expeditious resolution of cases related to environmental protection, conservation, and providing relief and compensation for damages to persons and property.

The Supreme Court bench also stated that there was no legal basis for the NGT to impose a ₹50 crore penalty on the company, asserting that penalties cannot be determined based on a company's annual turnover. It was noted that the methodology adopted by NGT for imposition of the penalty was unknown to any principle of law. The Supreme Court also appealed to courts and tribunals to refrain from engaging in mere rhetoric by stating the law in general without reference to the facts of the case.

This isn't the first time the Supreme Court has cautioned the NGT against exceeding its jurisdiction and urged it to act within the confines of its statutory powers. In prior instances, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the NGT is subordinate to High Courts concerning territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has also overturned NGT orders prohibiting construction work, asserting that the orders of constitutional courts take precedence over those of statutory tribunals.

The Supreme Court has in the past, addressed the NGT's exercise of suo motu powers, clarifying that while the NGT can take cognizance of environmental issues on its own, this power is not unlimited. The NGT's actions must remain within its "environmental domain" and adhere to principles of natural justice and fair play, ensuring that all parties affected by its orders have an opportunity to be heard.

The Supreme Court has previously noted instances where the NGT has passed orders without giving the affected parties a fair hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has also stated that the NGT cannot base its decision solely on the report of a joint committee, and that a tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it.

These observations underscore the importance of tribunals adhering to procedural integrity and ensuring a harmonious balance between justice and due process. The Supreme Court's repeated interventions highlight the necessity for the NGT to exercise its powers judiciously, respecting the boundaries of its jurisdiction and upholding fundamental legal principles.