MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 18-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 299
299
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2012)
MAY 18, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
ss. 14, 21 – Jurisdiction of the High Court, if ousted by the
NGT – Held:Nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or
explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts u/Arts. 226 and
227 – Power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by
the NGT Act –Prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is
neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as it is a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and
227.
National Green Tribunal – Seat of the NGT – Plea that there
should be NGT Bench in every State – Held: Seat of the NGT benches
can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate
them in every State – Prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to
Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected.
s.22 – Remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the
decisions of the NGT u/s. 22 – Held: Remedy of direct appeal to the
Supreme Court u/s. 22 is ultra vires the Constitution – As regards,
the appeal mechanism to the High Court from the decisions of the
NGT, the remedy before the High Court for a litigant u/Art. 226 and
227 continues to be available notwithstanding the enactment of the
NGT Act and the provision for appeal to the Supreme Court u/s. 22
– Constitution of India.
s. 3 – Validity of – Held: s. 3 is not a case of excessive
delegation of power to the Central Government – s. 3 is found to be
ultra vires the Constitution – Constitution of India.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The National Green Tribunal under Section 14
& 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 does not oust the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is
a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The remedy of
direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT
Act is intra vires the Constitution of India. Section 3 of the NGT
Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central
Government. The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per
exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State.
The prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is
unmerited and is rejected. [Para 38][233-G-H; 323-A-C]
Whether the NGT ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction under
Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act?
2. The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227,
and 32 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the
same is inviolable. The NGT is within the purview of Article 226
and 227 jurisdiction of the High Courts. The High Courts have
been entertaining petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution against orders of the NGT. While exercising such
jurisdiction, the Courts necessarily exercise due discretion on
whether to entertain or to reject the petition. Nothing contained
in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction
of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and the power of
judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act.
The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither
taken away nor it can be ousted, as without any doubt, it is
definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The
High Court’s exercise their discretion in tandem with the law
depending on the facts of each particular case. Since the High
Court’s jurisdiction remain unaffected, the first question is
answered in the negative, against the petitioners. [Paras 12-
15][314-C, G-H; 315-A, F-H; 316-A]
L Chandra Kumar v. UOI 1997 (3) SCC 261 : [1997]
(2) SCR 1186 – relied on.
Whether a seat of the NGT should be in every State? If
yes, should they invariably be established at the principal seat of
High Court, which in this case would be Jabalpur instead of
Bhopal?
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
3.1 The NGT caters to a limited number of cases unlike
the CAT, where the volume of cases is substantially higher. The
volume of cases handled by the NGT and the CAT are not
comparable. Looking at the large volume of service-related cases,
it was suggested that the Benches of the CAT should be located
at the seat of each High Court. But such logic cannot apply to the
NGT, where the zone wise pendency in aggregate is only 2237
cases as on 31.3.2022 from the date of its inc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.