India is one of the few countries in the world with a special court just for environmental issues, the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Set up in 2010, it was meant to give quick justice in cases of pollution, deforestation, and other threats to nature, with a promise to decide cases within six months. On paper, it sounds like a game-changer. But the big question is, “Is the NGT really making a difference on the ground, or is it just another court with good intentions?”
What are Eco courts?
Eco-courts are exactly what they sound like: courts that deal only with matters affecting the environment. Instead of handling every kind of legal dispute, they focus on cases like factory pollution, illegal mining, forest destruction, and threats to wildlife. What makes them different is that, alongside judges, they also include environmental experts who understand the science behind these issues.
In India, this role is carried out by the National Green Tribunal, which was set up under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, an initiative of the Ministry of Environment and Forests led by then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. It was created to provide a dedicated forum for the quick and expert resolution of environmental disputes. The tribunal’s first chairperson was Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.
The idea behind it was simple: regular courts are already overloaded, and environmental disputes often get buried under years of delay! By the time a decision is made, the damage to nature is usually permanent. The NGT was meant to cut through that delay, give faster judgments, stop ongoing harm, and make sure those who harm the environment pay to fix it!
Since its inception, the National Green Tribunal has made several impactful interventions in India’s environmental governance. Let’s just get into it by explaining a few successful cases.
One of the most talked-about cases linked to India’s green courts is the battle over the Sterlite Copper Plant in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. The plant had long faced complaints of serious air and water pollution, leading the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to order its closure more than once. In 2018, the National Green Tribunal stepped in and allowed the plant to reopen, but the Supreme Court, in early 2019, overturned that decision. The judges said the NGT didn’t actually have the jurisdiction to hear the kind of appeal Sterlite had filed. With that, the closure orders came back into force, and the company was told to take its fight to the Madras High Court. Although the verdict hinged on legal procedure rather than environmental findings, it sparked a bigger conversation about how far India’s eco-courts can really go.
Honestly, I feel the Sterlite case exposed a weakness in the system we trust to protect our environment. The National Green Tribunal exists to step in quickly and firmly when there’s a clear threat to sustainability, yet in this case, it didn’t take the kind of strong stand one would expect. I’m not saying its decision was completely wrong, but it didn’t live up to the responsibility it carries. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that delivered a clear and firm outcome, and while I respect that, I can’t ignore the question, “Why wasn’t the Green Tribunal the one to lead the way in resolving such a major environmental issue first?”
The real test lies in how effectively these rulings play out in the real world. One such example is the Yamuna Floodplain Encroachment Case in Delhi, where the National Green Tribunal (NGT) clearly ordered that no construction or dumping should happen on the Yamuna floodplains. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other agencies were told to mark the boundaries, remove illegal structures, and take steps to protect the river from further damage.
But over the years, these instructions were largely ignored, encroachments increased, waste continued to be dumped, and little was done to actually safeguard the area. When the 2023 floods hit Delhi, the issue became urgent again. In May 2024, the NGT directed agencies to finally complete boundary marking, clear out illegal occupation, and install fencing with warning boards, stressing that neglecting earlier orders was a serious violation.
From my point of view, NGT’s job shouldn’t end with passing a strong judgment. Protecting the environment requires more than just legal orders; it calls for regular follow-ups, strict enforcement, and awareness among local communities!
If monitoring stops after the verdict, violations creep back in, undoing years of effort. To truly protect places like the Yamuna floodplains, legal action or judicial orders must be paired with on-ground commitment, executive and public involvement.
I believe the National Green Tribunal has genuinely contributed to protecting the environment by doing its main job, interpreting laws and delivering decisions quickly. But real change doesn’t stop at a courtroom order; it depends on what follows. The government and its agencies must make sure these rulings are carried out and enforced, while citizens also have a responsibility to respect and safeguard nature in everyday life. If we truly want sustainable development in India, it can’t just be the job of the NGT or the authorities alone; it has to be a shared effort. Only when the judiciary, the executive, and the public work together, each taking responsibility for their part, can we see lasting improvement in our environment.
In the end, safeguarding our environment isn’t just about what the courts decide or what the government enforces! It’s about all of us playing our part. Real progress comes when laws are backed by action and supported by people who care. As Margaret Mead wisely said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
BY- AISHA AKHTAR (LAW STUDENT)
