C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 1 of 34    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION      

  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1359 OF 2017    

Techi Tagi Tara                 …Appellant  

versus  

Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors.                                      …Respondents   

WITH  

C.A. No. 1360/2017,  C.A. No. 2481/2017 , C.A. No. 526/2017,   

C.A. No. 1561/2017 , C.A. No. 4917/2017, C.A. No. 4936/2017,  

C.A. No. 5735/2017, C.A. Nos. 8377-8378/2017, C.A. No.  

10471/2017, C.A. No. 9498/2017 and C.A. Nos. 10472-

10473/2017    

J U D G M E N T     

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1. This batch of appeals is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 24 th  August, 2016 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal  

Bench, New Delhi (for short ‘the NGT’) in Original Application No. 318  

of 2013. 1   On a reading of the judgment and order passed by the NGT, it  

                                                           1  Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand and others

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 2 of 34    

is quite clear that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished that some  

persons appointed to the State Pollution Control Boards (for short  

‘SPCBs’) did not have, according to the NGT, the necessary expertise or  

qualifications to be members or chairpersons of such high powered and  

specialized statutory bodies and therefore did not deserve their  

appointment or nomination. While we fully commiserate with the NGT  

and share the pain and anguish, we are of the view that the Tribunal has,  

at law, exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the State Governments to  

reconsider the appointments and in laying down guidelines for  

appointment to the SPCBs, however well-meaning they might be.  

Therefore, we set aside the decision of the NGT, but note that a large  

number of disconcerting facts have been brought out in the judgment  

which need serious consideration by those in authority, particularly the  

State Governments that make appointments or nominations to the SPCBs.   

Such appointments should not be made casually or without due  

application of mind considering the duties, functions and responsibilities  

of the SPCBs.  

2. Why is it important to be more than careful in making such  

appointments? There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation   

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 3 of 34    

of the environment is extremely vital for all of us and unless this  

responsibility is taken very seriously, particularly by the State  

Governments and the SPCBs, we are inviting trouble that will have  

adverse consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable  

development, public trust and intergenerational equity are not mere catch  

words, but are concepts of great importance in environmental  

jurisprudence. Perhaps appreciating and anticipating this, Article 48A  

was introduced in the Constitution and this Article reads as follows:  

“Protection and improvement of environment and  

safeguarding of forests and wild life - The State shall  

endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to  

safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”  

Similarly Article 51A (g) of the Constitution indicates the fundamental  

duties of every citizen of the country, one of them being to protect and  

improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild  

life, and to have compassion for living creatures. 2  It is quite clear that  

apart from the natural law obligation to protect and preserve the  

environment, there is also a constitutional obligation to do so.  

Unfortunately, despite this, our society has been witnessing over the last                                                              2  51A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—  

(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx  

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and  to have compassion for living creatures;  

(h) to (k) xxx xxx xxx

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 4 of 34    

few decades, to repeated onslaughts against the environment, sometimes  

in the name of development and sometimes because our society just does  

not seem to care.  In this context we may also mention Article 21 of the  

Constitution which has been given a very wide amplitude by several  

decisions of this Court, including on issues concerning the environment.   

The judgment of the NGT draws attention to some of these aspects but  

essentially points to the ‘who-cares’ attitude adopted by several State  

Governments.   It is this attitude that compelled a public spirited  

environmentally conscious individual to challenge the composition of the  

SPCB in the State of Uttarakhand and consequently the necessity of  

being extra careful in making appointments to the SPCB.  

3. One of the principal attributes of good governance is the  

establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally competent  

persons and the strengthening of such institutions so that the duties and  

responsibilities conferred on them are performed with dedication and  

sincerity in public interest. This is applicable not only to administrative  

bodies but more so to statutory authorities – more so, because statutory  

authorities are the creation of a law made by a competent legislature,  

representing the will of the people.   

4. State Pollution Control Boards (or SPCBs) constituted under the  

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 5 of 34    

provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974  

and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 3  fall in this  

category but many of them possess only a few or sometimes none of the  

above attributes of good governance and again a few or none of them are  

adequately empowered.  This is a serious problem haunting the SPCBs  

for at least two decades (if not more).   

5.  The composition of the SPCB is provided for in Section 4(2) of the  

Water Act and this reads as follows (Section 5(2) of the Air Act is  

similar):  

“4(2) A State Board shall consist of the following members,  

namely:-  

(a) a chairman, being a person having special knowledge  

or practical experience in respect of matters relating to  

environmental protection or a person having  

knowledge and experience in administering institutions  

dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be nominated by  

the State Government:  

Provided that the chairman may be either whole-

time or part-time as the State Government may think  

fit;  

(b)  such number of officials, not exceeding five, to be  

nominated by the State Government to represent that  

Government;  

                                                             3  Henceforth the Water Act and the Air Act

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 6 of 34    

(c)  such number of persons, not exceeding five, to be  

nominated by the State Government from amongst the   

members of the local authorities functioning within the  

State;  

(d)  such number of non-officials, not exceeding three, to  

be nominated by the State Government to represent the  

interests of agriculture, fishery or industry or trade or  

any other interest which, in the opinion of the State  

Government, ought to be represented;  

(e)  two persons to represent the companies or  

corporations   owned, controlled or managed by the  

State Government, to be nominated by that  

Government;  

(f) A full-time member-secretary, possessing  

qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific,  

engineering or management aspects of pollution  

control, to be appointed by the State Government.”  

6. One of the earliest communications on our record encouraging  

professionalism in the SPCBs with a view to empowering them is a letter  

of 26 th  September, 1997 addressed by the Secretary in the Ministry of  

Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the Government of India to the Chief  

Secretary of every State highlighting the importance of the SPCBs, the  

fact that their activities are science and technology based and the necessity  

of taking relevant factors into consideration while making appointments to  

the SPCBs.  The letter reads as follows:  

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 7 of 34    

      “Secretary      Ministry of Environment & Forests  

    Government of India  

 September 26, 1997  

 D.O. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/97  

 Dear      

The State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control  

Committees in Union Territories have been assigned an  

important role for prevention and control of pollution from  

different sources.  In recent years, additional responsibilities have  

been assigned to them for enforcement of various statutes.   

Hence, these organizations need to be suitably strengthened so  

that they can cope up with the tasks.  In fact, the Hon’ble  

Supreme Court has also had occasion to observe on the  

unsatisfactory performance of State Boards in discharging their  

functions.  

The activities of the Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control  

Committees are essentially science and technology based.  The  

Chairman and Member Secretaries are the key functionaries of  

the Boards/Committees who are expected to have requisites  

professional knowledge and experience for providing effective  

leadership to their organizations.  Under the Water (Prevention  

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and  

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the specific requirements for  

appointment to these posts have been laid down.  

However, in some State Boards/Committees, the appointments to  

these posts are made without due consideration to such  

requirements as envisaged under the Acts.  Also, another major  

problem being faced by these organizations is on account of  

frequent changes of Chairmen and Member Secretaries.  I request  

you to kindly ensure that appropriate persons are appointed for  

these key positions  and they are not frequently changed. Where  

the incumbents do not have the prescribed criteria they should be  

replaced.   

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 8 of 34    

It is requested that this issue may kindly receive your personal  

attention on a top priority basis.  

With regards    

Yours sincerely,    

Sd/-  

(Vishwanath Anand)”  

7. More importantly and perhaps keeping the diverse nature of  

activities of the SPCBs in mind, a conference was held in Coimbatore on  

29 th  and 30

th  January, 2001 of the Ministers of Environment and Forests of  

the State Governments. The conference recommended, inter alia, the  

induction of academicians, professionals, experts and technologists for the  

effective functioning of the SPCBs. As a follow-up to the  

recommendations, a letter was addressed by the Secretary in the MoEF to  

the Chief Secretary of every State on 3 rd

July, 2001. This letter reads as  

follows:  

“P.V. Jayakrishnan  

Secretary  

D.O. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/2001  

July 3, 2001  

Dear  

In the National Conference of Ministries of Environment  

and Forests held at Coimbatore on January 29-30, 2001, several  

important recommendations were made regarding effective  

functioning of the State Pollution Control Boards/ Committees.  

These include the following:

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 9 of 34    

(i) Induction of academicians, legal professionals,  health experts and technologists as members of the  

Boards/Committees.  

(ii) Appointment of multi-disciplinary staff  (iii) Ban on recruitment shall be relaxed for the posts of  

scientists and engineers in the Pollution Control  

Boards/Committees.  

(iv) Training of personnel, for which programme shall  be drawn up by the Central Pollution Control  

Board.  

(v) Streamlining of Consent/Authorization procedures.  (vi) Inventorization of polluting sources and pollution  

load.  

(vii) Formulation of Annual Action Plans.  (viii) Publication of annual State Environment Report.  

(ix) Strengthening and upgrading of water and air  quality monitoring and laboratory facilities.  

We had taken up the matter with the respective State Pollution  

Control Boards/Committees. Since most of the action points  

require intervention of the State Governments, I request you  

kindly to take necessary action for implementation of the  

recommendations.  

I look forward to your response at the earliest.   

With regards.  

Yours Sincerely,  

Sd/-  

                                                                                        (P.V. Jayakrishnan)  

 To Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs”    

8. These communications seem to have had little or no impact at least  

in one instance as is evident from a reading of a decision of the  

Jharkhand High Court dated 15 th

May, 2002 in Binay Kumar Sinha v.  

State of Jharkhand 4  concerning the Chairperson of the SPCB of that  

                                                           4  (2002) 50 BLJR 2223

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 10 of 34    

State. The High Court was compelled to make the following scathing and  

unfortunate observations:  

“4. On 4th April 2002, when the Chairman appeared before us  

and we started talking to him in order to elicit his views and  

opinion on the aforesaid questions, what we found has been aptly  

and clearly recorded in our order of that day. The extracts read  

thus:--"Shri Thakur Bal Mukund Nath Shahdeo, Chairman, State  

Pollution Control Board has appeared before us today in person.  

During the course of our conversation with him, we found (to our  

total horror, surprise, dismay and amazement) that he does not  

know anything at all about any aspect relating to pollution, or the  

control of pollution. In course of our extensive conversation with  

him, we found that the only academic qualification that he boasts  

of is 'matriculation'. He has no other academic or technical  

qualification whatsoever. When, by referring to Section 5(2)(a)  

of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, we  

asked him whether he has any special knowledge or any practical  

experience in respect of any matter relating to the environmental  

pollution, his answer was in the negative. We must record that  

during the course of our conversation with Sri Shahdeo, we were  

constantly helped and assisted by Mr. Poddar, learned Addl.  

Advocate General. We actually impressed upon Mr. Poddar the  

need of assisting Sri Shahdeo in answering our questions. Mr.  

Poddar very kindly lent his helping hand to us. What emerged  

was that Mr. Shahdeo has neither any general or special  

knowledge, nor any academic qualification, nor any experience  

whatsoever that may have anything to do with any matter or any  

aspect relating to the pollution, air pollution, water pollution,  

noise pollution, or any other pollution of any kind. What to speak  

of his-having special knowledge or practical experience, he has  

neither any knowledge, general or special, nor any experience,  

practical or otherwise with respect to any matters relating to  

environmental pollution. We repeatedly asked him to inform us  

about one single such fact by which he could lay his claim to  

hold this office. He failed to inform us of even a single fact

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 11 of 34    

which could qualify him to hold this office. His only claim was  

that he is a politico-social worker. We asked him also as to how  

he came to be appointed on this post. He says that he made an  

application to Mrs. Neelam Nath, Secretary, Forests, we asked  

him whether such an application was invited from him. He says  

that the application was invited from him. We asked him whether  

invitation was extended to him personally by Mrs. Neelam Nath  

or did it appear in any advertisement. He says that he, on his  

own, gave such an application and that it was neither invited  

personally from him nor through any advertisement. Prima facie,  

it appears to us that a person who does not have the requisite  

qualification, experience, or knowledge has been appointed on  

the post of Chairman, Pollution Control Board. Before we  

proceed any further, we would like Mr. Poddar, learned A.A.G.  

to produce before us the original records of the Govt. relating to  

the appointment of Mr. Shahdeo."   

5. It was from this point onwards that a case arose within a case.  

Both the issues started being dealt with simultaneously by us,  

namely, the issue relating to Sundera Mineral & Chemical  

Industry and the propriety, legality and validity of the  

appointment of Mr. Shahdeo.”  

A little later in the judgment it was held:   

“41. Looked at from the aforesaid legal perspective and in view  

of our clear findings that Shri Shahdeo did not possess the  

qualifications required of the Chairman, State Pollution Control  

Board, we have no hesitation, but to hold that it would be a  

violation of the law to allow him to continue as the Chairman of  

the State Board. We accordingly order and declare that the  

appointment of Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, was not  

legal and valid and hence improperly made and therefore, on  

these grounds we order and direct that he cannot continue to  

function as such. By issuance of a writ of quo-warranto,  

therefore, the appointment of Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State  

Board, is quashed and set aside. Shri Shahdeo shall forthwith and  

with immediate effect cease to hold the office of Chairman, State

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 12 of 34    

Board. The post of Chairman, State Board is hereby declared to  

be vacant, and with immediate effect.”   

9. Notwithstanding the above decision, communications and orders,  

the State Governments continued to display disinterest in the matter of  

professional appointments to the SPCBs. This led to another  

communication from the MoEF on 16 th

August, 2005 (which still did not  

have the desired effect) and this communication reads as follows:  

“Supreme Court Matter   

Most Immediate   

By Speed Post   

No. 23-8/2004-HSMD (Vol.II)  

Government of India  

Ministry of Environment & Forests  

(Supreme Court Monitoring Committee)  

Room No, 927, Paryavaran Bhawan   

C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road   

New Delhi-110003 108     

Dated 16 th

 August, 2005   

To,   

The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs   

(As per the list enclosed)   

Sub:   Constitution of the State Pollution Control Board/Pollution  

Control Committees (SPCBs PCCs) - regarding   

Dear Sir,   

The Supreme Court by its order dated 14-10-2003 in the Writ  

Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995 set up a Monitoring Committee to  

ensure time-bound implementation of various directions given in

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 13 of 34    

the said order. 5  The committee has been visiting several States to  

monitor the status of implementation of these directions.     

During its interaction with various pollution control officials, the  

Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) has noticed that  

the State Pollution Control Board (SPCBs), Pollution Control  

Committee (PCCs) of UTs were not constituted in accordance  

with the provisions given in the Water Act, 1994 and the Air Act,  

1981.   

Chairperson of the Board :-   

3. The statutory provisions require that Chairpersons appointed  

shall be persons having “special knowledge or practical  

experience in respect of matters relating to environmental  

protection or a person having knowledge and experience in  

administering institutions dealing with the matter aforesaid”   

4. The SCMC has found that in the several cases, the Chief  

Secretaries, Environment Secretaries, politicians, MLAs, literary  

persons and non-technical persons have been appointed as  

Chairperson of SPCBs/PCCs.   

5. The MGK Menon Committee had recommended in its report  

that “The Chairman of the Pollution Control Boards &  

Committees should be individuals with a sense of vision and a  

feeling for the future. They must have an understanding of the  

complexity of modern science and technology since they will be  

dealing with highly technical issue. They must have an  

understanding of law. The chairperson would have to be fully  

involved in the task of environment construction and planning  

appointment of the Chairperson of the Board should be on full  

time basis.     

Member Secretary of the Board:-   

6. Similarly, in respect of the post of Member Secretary the  

statutory provisions (Water Act) require that he be full-time,  

possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience of  

scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution  

control.   

                                                           5  Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 14 of 34    

7. In relation to appointment of Member Secretaries, the Menon  

Committee has recommended that: “The incumbent should  

possess a post-graduate degree in science, engineering or  

technology, and have adequate experience of working in the area  

of environment protection”.   

8. The SCMC has found that in several States, persons from IFS  

or from the PWD especially from the PHE departments, are  

either being appointed or deputed to the post of Member  

Secretary without the necessary statutory qualifications.   

Members:-   

9. No effort is being made to appoint persons with adequate  

scientific, technical or legal background from the environmental   

field as members of the Board. Board members are increasingly  

being appointed for political purposes. This is leading to  

ineffective and inefficient functioning of SPCBs/PCCs.   

10. Though the Boards are to function as statutory bodies under  

the Air Act, 1981, no specialists in air pollution (as required by  

the Air Act, 1981) are being appointed as members. This is a  

serious lacuna in constitution of the Boards.   

11. During its visits to various States to monitor implementation  

of the order dated 14.10.2003, the SCMC has observed that the  

order of the Supreme Court being efficiently carried out in States  

that have competent Chairperson or Member Secretaries. In other  

States, due to lack of proper attention at the highest level,  

implementation is found to be tardy and without much progress.   

12. The SCMC discussed these issues at its meeting held on 28-

03-2005 came to the firm conclusion that only technically  

qualified professionals should be appointed to the critical  

positions of Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the  

Pollution Control Boards so that their functioning can be  

strengthened as required in terms of paragraph - 41.1 of the  

Supreme Court’s order dated 14.10.2003.  

13. The committee is also of the view that recommendations of  

the MGK Menon Committee be fully respected and the  

Chairperson should be appointed on full-time basis. Without the

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 15 of 34    

officers it is not possible for any Board to function effectively in  

view of the numerous laws and statutes that demand efficient and  

effective actions from State Pollution Control Boards.  

14. We draw your kind attention to several reports on  

strengthening of State Pollution Control Boards. These include:   

1) The Bhattacharia Committee, 1984   

2) The Belliappa Committee, 1990   

3) The ASCI Study, 1994   

4) Study of the Sub Group, 1994     

15. All these studies were considered during the Evaluation  

Study on “Function of the Pollution Control Board” prepared by  

the Programme Evaluation Organization of the Planning  

Commission.   

16. The Planning Commission report concluded: “Considering  

the interesting technicalities involved in the functions to be  

performed by these Boards, it is essential that technical persons  

possessing scientific knowledge about matters relating to  

pollution and pollution control hold the upper hand”.   

17. The conference of Ministers of Environment that took place  

in Coimbatore also reiterated at the highest political level, the  

decision that the SPCBs should be headed and staffed by  

technically competent professionals (and not by journalists or  

politicians or administrative officers).   

18. The composition of the Boards is therefore under the scrutiny  

of the SCMC and no further appointment of Chairpersons or  

Member Secretaries should be carried out which do not meet the  

norms given in the statute and elucidated by the Menon  

Committee.   

19. In view of the above, you are requested to inform this  

monitoring Committee regarding the qualifications of the  

Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the Pollution  

Control Board, Pollution Control Committee in your State/ Union  

Territory. Based on the information, the committee will examine  

whether the persons nominated to these positions meet the

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 16 of 34    

statutory norms and the requirements as indicated in the MGK  

Menon Committee Report and the Order of the Supreme Court  

dated 14.10.2003 and further necessary action will be taken in  

the matter.   

20. This matter may kindly be given the highest consideration  

and a reply in this regard may be provided to the undersigned  

within 4 weeks so that the same will be considered in the next  

SCMC meeting. It will be highly appreciated, if a copy of the  

information may also be sent through email.   

Yours faithfully   

Sd/-  

(Dr. G. Thyagarajan)   

Chairman,   

Supreme Court Monitoring Committee   

Telefax: 011-24361410   

Email: drgarajan @yahoo.co.in”  

10. There are a few other communications on the same subject but it is  

not necessary to detail their contents.   All that need be said is that the  

Central Government, time and again, requested the State Governments to  

appoint persons who could add value and stature to the SPCBs by their  

very presence and then utilize their expertise in preserving and protecting  

the environment, including air and water.  

11. As far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, it has come on  

record that no rules (let alone recruitment rules) have been framed by the  

State under the Water Act and the Air Act even though the State was  

formed several years ago.  Rules framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 17 of 34    

notified in 1984 have been adopted by Uttarakhand but there has  

apparently been no fresh application of mind to these Rules or even  

consideration of the possibly somewhat different conditions in  

Uttarakhand.   There seems to be a mechanical and bodily lifting of the  

Uttar Pradesh Rules.   Apart from the above, it has also come on record  

that meetings of the SPCB are required to be held once in three months  

but as far as the State of  Uttarakhand is concerned, only 15 meetings  

were held during the period from 2001 (when the Board was constituted)  

over the next 12 years.  There is therefore nonchalance shown by  

Uttarakhand to the rule making power and the provisions of Section 8 of  

the Water Act and Section 10 of the Air Act 6  relating to holding meetings  

of the SPCB.  

12. To make matter worse, despite this Court passing an order on 8 th   

January, 2008 (in IA No.4/2007 in SLP (Civil) No.6023/2006)  directing  

                                                           6  Section 8 of the Water Act: 8. Meetings of Board.—A Board shall meet at least once in every three  

months and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its  meetings as may be prescribed:  Provided that if, in the opinion of the chairman, any business of an urgent nature is to be transacted,  he may convene a meeting of the Board at such time as he thinks fit for the aforesaid purpose.    Section 10 of the Air Act: 10. Meetings of Board.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a Board shall meet  at least once in every three months and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the  transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed:  

Provided that if, in the opinion of the Chairman, any business of an urgent nature is to be transacted,  he may convene a meeting of the Board at such time as he thinks fit for the aforesaid purpose.  

(2) Copies of the minutes of the meetings under sub-section (1) shall be forwarded to the Central  Board and to the State Government concerned.   

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 18 of 34    

the State of  Uttarakhand and the SPCB to consider the desirability of  

making rules laying down essential qualifications and experience and  

other relevant factors for appointment of members in the SPCB 7 , we are  

told that unfortunately, such rules have not been made and the impugned  

order under appeal indicates that the matter has remained  under  

consideration of the State Government since 2006.  

13. Keeping all these facts and the recalcitrance of the State  

Governments in mind, the NGT examined the expertise and  

qualifications of members of the SPCB of almost all States and prima  

facie found that about ten States and one Union Territory had members in  

the SPCB who lacked the qualifications suggested by the Central  

Government.    

14. At this stage, it must be mentioned that apart from the Central  

Government, there are several authorities that have applied their mind to  

the issue of appointment of members of the SPCBs.  These include  

Expert Committees such as the Bhattacharya Committee of 1984, the  

                                                           7  “I.A. No. 4/2007 be treated as an original petition to be listed along with SLP (C) No. 6023/2006.   

Learned counsel for the State of Uttaranchal and Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution  Control Board shall find out the desirability of having Rules governing the essential qualifications and  experience and such relevant factors for the appointment of various officials in the Board.  They shall  also indicate their stand as regards certain NOCs stated to have been issued to pharmaceutical  manufacturers.  Call after eight weeks.”  IA No.4/2007 was converted to W.P. (Civil) No.85/2008 which was listed along with SLP (Civil)  No.6023/2006

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 19 of 34    

Belliappa Committee of 1990, the Administrative Staff College of India  

Study of 1994 and a Committee chaired by Prof. M.G.K. Menon.   

Notwithstanding this, the response of the State Governments in  

appointing professionals and experts to the SPCBs has been remarkably  

casual.  It is this chalta hai attitude that led the NGT to direct the State  

Governments to consider examining the appointment of the Chairperson  

and members in the SPCBs and determining whether their appointment  

deserves continuation or cancellation.  Thereafter the NGT gave several  

guidelines that ought to be followed in making appointments to the  

SPCBs.  

15. The objection of the appellants is to: (i) the exercise of jurisdiction  

by the NGT in directing the State Governments to reconsider the  

appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs; and (ii)  

laying down guidelines for appointment of the Chairperson and members  

of the SPCBs.   

16. As regard the first grievance, it is contended that the appointment  

or removal of members of the SPCBs does not lie within the statutory  

jurisdiction of the NGT. Our attention has been drawn to some provisions  

of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the Act’). The

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 20 of 34    

jurisdiction of the NGT is circumscribed by Section 14 of the Act which  

reads as follows:  

“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—(1) The Tribunal shall  

have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial  

question relating to environment (including enforcement of  

any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such  

question arises out of the implementation of the enactments  

specified in Schedule I.  

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the  

questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such  

disputes and pass order thereon.  

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this  

section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made  

within a period of six months from the date on which the  

cause of action for such dispute first arose:   

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the  

applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the  

application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a  

further period not exceeding sixty days.”   

This provision cannot be read in isolation but must be read in conjunction  

with Section 15 of the Act which relates to relief, compensation and  

restitution as being broadly the directions that can be issued by the NGT.   

Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:  

“15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—  

(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,—   

(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and  

other environmental damage arising under the enactments  

specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring  

while handling any hazardous substance);    

(b) for restitution of property damaged;  

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 21 of 34    

(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as  

the Tribunal may think fit.  

(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property  

and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-

section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable  

under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).  

(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or  

restitution of property or environment under this section shall  

be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a  

period of five years from the date on which the cause for such  

compensation or relief first arose:   

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the  

applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the  

application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a  

further period not exceeding sixty days.   

(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public  

health, property and environment, divide the compensation or  

relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so  

as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for  

restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may  

think fit.  

(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this  

Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed  

to, or, as the case may be, compensation or relief received  

from, any other court or authority.”  

Finally, it is important to refer to Section 2(m) of the Act which reads:  

“(m) “substantial question relating to environment” shall  

include an instance where,—  

(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory  

environmental obligation by a person by which,—  

(A) the community at large other than an individual  

or group of individuals is affected or likely to be  

affected by the environmental consequences; or  

(B) the gravity of damage to the environment or  

property is substantial; or

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 22 of 34    

(C) the damage to public health is broadly  

measurable;  

(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific  

activity or a point source of pollution;”  

17. On a combined reading of all these provisions, it is clear to us that  

there must be a substantial question relating to the environment and that  

question must arise in a dispute – it should not be an academic question.  

There must also be a claimant raising that dispute which dispute is  

capable of settlement by the NGT by the grant of some relief which could  

be in the nature of compensation or restitution of property damaged or  

restitution of the environment and any other incidental or ancillary relief  

connected therewith.    

18. The appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs  

cannot be classified in any circumstance as a substantial question relating  

to the environment. At best it could be a substantial question relating to  

their appointment. Moreover, their appointment is not a dispute as one  

would normally understand it. In Prabhakar v. Joint Director,  

Sericulture Department 8  the following ‘definition’ of dispute was noted  

in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Report:  

                                                           8  (2015) 15 SCC 1

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 23 of 34    

“34. To understand the meaning of the word “dispute”, it would  

be appropriate to start with the grammatical or dictionary  

meaning of the term:  

“‘Dispute’.—to argue about, to contend for, to oppose by  

argument, to call in question — to argue or debate (with, about or  

over) — a contest with words; an argument; a debate; a quarrel;”  

35.  Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., p. 424 defines “dispute”  

as under:  

“Dispute.—A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or  

rights; an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met  

by contrary claims or allegations on the other. The subject of  

litigation; the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which  

issue is joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and  

witnesses examined.”  

19. As far as we are concerned, in the context of the Act, a dispute  

would be the assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by contrary  

claims on the other side.  In other words, the dispute must be one of  

substance and not of form and it appears to us that the appointments that  

we are concerned with are not ‘disputes’ as such or even disputes for the  

purposes of the Act – they could be disputes for a constitutional court to  

resolve through a writ of quo warranto, but certainly not for the NGT to  

venture into. The failure of the State Government to appoint professional  

and experienced persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to  

appoint any person at all might incidentally result in an ineffective  

implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this cannot be  

classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT would have

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 24 of 34    

jurisdiction.  Such a failure might be of a statutory obligation over which,  

in the present context and not universally, only a constitutional court  

would have jurisdiction and not a statutory body like the NGT.  While we  

appreciate the anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect the  

environment as a part of its statutory functions, we cannot extend these  

concepts to the extent of enabling the NGT to consider who should be  

appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or who should not  

be so appointed.   

20. Additionally, no relief as postulated by Section 15 of the Act could  

be granted to a claimant, assuming that a substantial question relating to  

the environment does arise and that a dispute does exist.   

21. It appears to us that the NGT realized its limitations in this regard  

and therefore issued a direction to the State Governments to reconsider  

the appointments already been made, but the seminal issue is really  

whether the NGT could at all have entertained a claim of the nature that  

was raised.  For reasons given above, the answer must be in the negative  

and it would have been more appropriate for the NGT to have required  

the claimant to approach a constitutional court for the relief prayed for in  

the original application.  To this extent therefore, the direction given by  

the NGT must be set aside as being without jurisdiction. However, we

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 25 of 34    

have been told that some States have implemented the order of the NGT  

and removed some members while others have approached this Court and  

obtained an interim stay order. Those officials who were removed  

pursuant to the order of the NGT (including the appellant Techi Tagi  

Tara) have an independent cause of action and we leave it open to them  

to challenge their removal in appropriate and independent proceedings.  

This is an issue between the removed official and the State Government -  

the removal is not a public interest issue and we cannot reverse the  

situation.  

22. On the second grievance relating to the issue of guidelines by the  

NGT, the meat of the matter concerns the appointment of officials who  

are experts in their field and are otherwise professional. This is for each  

State Government to consider and decide what is the right thing to do  

under the circumstances – should an unqualified or inexperienced person  

be appointed or should the SPCB be a representative but expert body?  

The Water Act and the Air Act as well as the Constitution give ample  

guidance in this regard. We have already adverted to the provisions of the  

Constitution including Article 48A, Article 51A(g) and Article 21 of the  

Constitution. So, the entire scheme of the various provisions of the  

Constitution adverted to above, including the principles that have been

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 26 of 34    

accepted and adopted internationally as well as by this Court such as the  

principles of sustainable development, public trust and intergenerational  

equity are a clear indication that in matters relating to the protection and  

preservation of the environment (through the appointment of officials to  

the SPCBs) the Central Government as well as the State Governments  

have to walk the extra mile. Unfortunately, many of the State  

Governments have not even taken the first step in that direction – hence  

the present problem.  

23. While it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT and also beyond our  

jurisdiction to lay down specific rules and guidelines for recruitment of  

the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs, we are of opinion that there  

should be considerable deliberation before an appointment is made and  

only the best should be appointed to the SPCB. It is necessary in this  

regard for the Executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for the  

appointment of such persons who would add lustre and value to the  

SPCB. In this connection we refer to the State of Punjab v. Salil  

Sabhlok 9  in which it was observed with reference to appointments to the  

Public Service Commission that besides express restrictions in a statute  

or the Constitution, there can be implied restrictions in a statute or the  

                                                           9  (2013) 5 SCC 1

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 27 of 34    

Constitution and the statutory or constitutional authority cannot, in  

breach of such implied restrictions, exercise its discretionary power.  In  

our opinion this would be equally applicable to an appointment to a  

statutory body such as the SPCB - the State Government does not have  

unlimited discretion or power to appoint anybody that it chooses to do.     

24. It was also held in Salil Sabhlok (supra) that the deliberative  

process and institutional requirements are of considerable importance in  

respect of any appointment that is made.  In this context, the imperative  

of good governance was highlighted and with regard to framing rules or  

issuing guidelines, it was held as follows:  

“In the light of the various decisions of this Court adverted to  

above, the administrative and constitutional imperative can be  

met only if the Government frames guidelines or parameters for  

the appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Punjab  

Public Service Commission.  That it has failed to do so does not  

preclude this Court or any superior court from giving a direction  

to the State Government to conduct the necessary exercise within  

a specified period.  Only because it is left to the State Legislature  

to consider the desirability or otherwise of specifying the  

qualifications or experience for the appointment of a person to  

the position of Chairperson or Member of the Punjab Public  

Service Commission, does not imply that this Court cannot direct  

the executive to frame guidelines and set the parameters.  This  

Court can certainly issue appropriate directions in this regard,  

and in the light of the experience gained over the last several  

decades coupled with the views expressed by the Law  

Commission, the Second Administrative Reform Commission  

and the views expressed by this Court from time to time, it is  

imperative for good governance and better administration to  

issue directions to the executive to frame appropriate guidelines  

and parameters based on the indicators mentioned by this Court.  

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 28 of 34    

These guidelines can and should be binding on the State of  

Punjab till the State Legislature exercises its power.”  

25. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana 10

 this Court observed  

that competent, honest, independent persons of outstanding ability and  

high reputation who command the confidence of people and who would  

not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous consideration  

from discharging their duties should be appointed to Public Service  

Commissions.  Similarly, in In R/o Dr Ram Ashray Yadav 11

it was held  

that the credibility of an institution is founded upon the faith of the  

common man in its proper functioning.  The faith would be eroded and  

confidence destroyed if it appears that the officials act subjectively and  

not objectively or that their actions are suspect.  In our opinion, these  

conclusions of this Court would equally apply to professional and expert  

statutory bodies such as the Central Pollution Control Board and the State  

Pollution Control Boards.   

26. Additionally, various committees  have given sufficient guidelines  

for the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs. The  

Bhattacharya Committee (1984) proposed that the structural  

organization of SPCBs should consist of technical services, scientific  

                                                           10

(1985) 4 SCC 417  11

(2000) 4 SCC 309

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 29 of 34    

services, planning, legal services, administrative services, accounts,  

training cell and research and development. The Committee, inter-alia,  

called for (a) discouraging the flow of deputationists to the Boards, (b)  

upgrading regional laboratories, (c) providing each Board with at least  

one mobile laboratory, (d) creating a centralized training institute, (e)  

providing, on priority, funds to establish air control activity, and (f)  

bestowing the power to make posts at least up to the rank of  

environmental engineers/scientists with the Boards. 12

27. Similarly, the Belliappa Committee (1990) recommended (a)  

introducing elaborate monitoring, reporting and organizational systems at  

the national level along with four regional centres and one training cell in  

each Board, (b) effecting suitable changes in the Boards recruitment  

policy to enable them induct persons with suitable academic  

qualifications, and (c) ensuring that the Chairman and Member-Secretary  

are appointed for a minimum of three years.  

28. The Administrative Staff College of India (1994) recommended,  

inter alia, that (a) the SPCBs be reoriented for implementing the  

instrument mix of legislation and regulation, fiscal incentives, voluntary  

                                                           12

Final Report prepared by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in 2005 on Institutional Capacity  Building highlights the recommendations made by the Bhattacharya Committee, the Belliappa  Committee and the ASCI Study  

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 30 of 34    

agreements, information campaigns and educational programmes (b) an  

Annual Environmental Quality Report be prepared by every SPCB for  

the concerned State, (c) an inventory of discharges and effluents  

disaggregated to the district level be prepared, (d) a research cell be  

formed in each SPCB and a network be established with the proposed  

clean technology centre  and (f) model environmental impact assessments  

be prepared for major categories of industries.  

29. Finally, the Menon Committee 13

made recommendations that are  

a part of the communication of 16 th  August, 2005 referred to above. It  

was also recommended that (a) in general, State Governments should not  

interfere with recruitment policies of the SPCBs, especially where the  

Boards are making efforts to equip their institutions with more and better  

trained engineering and scientific staff, (b) the statutory independence  

and functional autonomy given to the SPCBs should be protected and the  

Boards should be kept free from political interference. The Boards should  

be enabled to make independent decisions in this regard and (c) the  

Chairperson of the SPCB should be a full-time appointee for a period of  

five years and the Member-Secretary of the SPCB should also be  

appointed for a period of five years.   

                                                           13

Constituted pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 14 th

October, 2003 in  Writ Petition (Civil)  No. 657/1995

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 31 of 34    

30. All these suggestions and recommendations are more than enough  

for making expert and professional appointments to the SPCBs being  

geared towards establishing a professional body with multifarious tasks  

intended to preserve and protect the environment and consisting of  

experts. Any contrary view or compromise in the appointments would  

render the exercise undertaken by all these committees completely  

irrelevant and redundant. Surely, it cannot be said that the committees  

were not constituted for the purpose of putting their recommendations in  

the dustbin.  

31. Unfortunately, notwithstanding all these suggestions,  

recommendations and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by  

persons who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or  

professional experience to address the issues for which the SPCBs were  

established by law. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences in a Report  

published quite recently in 2013 titled “Environmental Regulatory  

Authorities in India: An Assessment of State Pollution Control Boards”  

had this to say about some of the appointments to the SPCBs:   

“An analysis of data collected from State Pollution Control  

Boards, however, gives a contrasting picture. It has been  

observed that time and again across state governments have not  

been able to choose a qualified, impartial, and politically neutral  

person of high standing to this crucial regulatory post. The recent

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 32 of 34    

appointments of chairpersons of various State Pollution Control  

Boards like Karnataka (A a senior BJP leader), Himachal  

Pradesh (B a Congress party leader and former MLA), Uttar  

Pradesh (C appointed on the recommendation of SP leader X),  

Arunachal Pradesh (D a sitting NCP party MLA), Manipur  

Pollution Control Board (E a sitting MLA), Maharashtra  

Pollution Control Board (F a former bureaucrat) are in blatant  

violation of the apex court guidelines. The apex court has  

recommended that the appointees should be qualified in the field  

of environment or should have special knowledge of the subject.  

It is unfortunate that in a democratic set up, key enterprises and  

boards are headed by bureaucrats for over a decade. In this  

connection, it is very important for State Governments to  

understand that filling a key regulatory post with the primary  

intention to reward an ex-official through his or her appointment  

upon retirement, to a position for which he or she may not  

possess the essential overall qualifications, does not do justice to  

the people of their own states and also staffs working in the State  

Pollution Control Boards. The primary lacuna with this kind of  

appointment was that it did not evoke any trust in the people that  

decisions taken by an ex-official of the State or a former political  

leader, appointed to this regulatory post through what appeared  

to be a totally non-transparent unilateral decision. Many senior  

environmental scientists and other officers of various State  

Pollution Control Boards have expressed their concern for  

appointing bureaucrats and political leader as Chairpersons who  

they feel not able to create a favourable atmosphere and an  

effective work culture in the functioning of the board. It has also  

been argued by various environmental groups that if the  

government is unable to find a competent person, then it should  

advertise the post, as has been done recently by states like  

Odisha. However, State Governments have been defending their  

decision to appoint bureaucrats to the post of Chairperson as they  

believe that the vast experience of IAS officers in handling  

responsibilities would be easy. Another major challenge has been  

appointing people without having any knowledge in this field.  

For example, the appointment of G with maximum qualification  

of Class X as Chairperson of State Pollution Control Board of  

Sikkim was clear violation of Water Pollution and Prevention  

Act, 1974.” 14

                                                           14

The names have been deliberately left out by us

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 33 of 34    

32. The concern really is not one of a lack of professional expertise –  

there is plenty of it available in the country – but the lack of dedication  

and willingness to take advantage of the resources available and instead  

benefit someone close to the powers that be. With this couldn’t-care-less  

attitude, the environment and public trust are the immediate casualties.  It  

is unlikely that with such an attitude, any substantive effort can be made  

to tackle the issues of environment degradation and issues of pollution.  

Since the NGT was faced with this situation, we can appreciate its  

frustration at the scant regard for the law by some State Governments,  

but it is still necessary in such situations to exercise restraint as cautioned  

in State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht. 15

33. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that it would be  

appropriate, while setting aside the judgment and order of the NGT, to direct  

the Executive in all the States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment  

rules within six months, considering the institutional requirements of the  

SPCBs and the law laid down by statute, by this Court and as per the reports  

of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable professionals  

and experts are appointed to the SPCBs. Any damage to the environment  

could be permanent and irreversible or at least long-lasting.  Unless  

                                                           15

(2007) 6 SCC 586

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc.                                                                                           Page 34 of 34    

corrective measures are taken at the earliest, the State Governments should  

not be surprised if petitions are filed against the State for the issuance of a  

writ of quo warranto in respect of the appointment of the Chairperson and  

members of the SPCBs.  We make it clear that it is left open to public  

spirited individuals to move the appropriate High Court for the issuance of  a  

writ of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or  

constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of  

any SPCB or is presently continuing as such.  

34. The appeals are disposed of in light of the above discussion.  

….……………………J  

          (Madan B. Lokur)   

………………………..J  

            (Deepak Gupta)   

New Delhi;  

September 22, 2017