NGT Must Follow Water Act Sampling Procedure and Audi Alteram Partem: Ad hoc Committee Reports Cannot Substitute Adjudication

Case: M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 1060)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.; Manoj Misra, J.

Date: 1 September 2025

Appeal under: Section 22, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Introduction

This decision addresses whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT), while acting within its specialized environmental jurisdiction, can impose environmental compensation based on the findings of an ad hoc joint committee without:

following the statutory sampling and analysis procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act), and
ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) including impleadment and a fair opportunity of hearing to the affected project proponent.

The appellant, a sugar manufacturer with a unit at Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, challenged two NGT orders in an original application (O.A. No. 71/2021) initiated on allegations of untreated effluent discharge contaminating groundwater and nearby drains. The NGT:

constituted a joint committee (CPCB, UPPCB, and the District Magistrate) to inspect and report,
found violations in its order dated 15 February 2022, and
levied Rs. 18 crores as environmental compensation (2% of turnover) by order dated 16 September 2022.

The Supreme Court set aside both orders for fundamental procedural defects, clarifying the boundaries of NGT’s powers and the non-negotiable nature of statutory procedure and natural justice in environmental adjudication.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the NGT’s orders dated 15 February 2022 and 16 September 2022.
Core reasons:
- NGT failed to implead the appellant, denied a hearing, and relied on joint committee findings without adjudication—violating Section 19(1) of the NGT Act and the principle of audi alteram partem.
- The joint committee did not adhere to the mandatory statutory sampling and analysis procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act, rendering its results inadmissible for use in legal determinations.
- NGT cannot outsource adjudication to expert committees; their role is only assistive.
Ordinarily, a remand might follow a natural justice violation, but since the statutory sampling framework itself was ignored, the entire exercise stood vitiated; hence, remand was eschewed.
Liberty was reserved to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) to conduct fresh inspection and proceed in accordance with the Water Act and principles of natural justice.
No order as to costs.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegation: The appellant’s sugar mill allegedly discharged untreated effluent into a drain, affecting groundwater in a 1.5 km radius.
NGT’s steps:
- Constituted a joint committee (CPCB, UPPCB, DM Muzaffarnagar) on 22 March 2021 to inspect and report when the unit was operational.
- Inspection occurred on 8 December 2021; the committee report of 11 January 2022 noted, among other things, two ponds with high BOD/COD, absence of certain flow meters, and lack of ETP logbooks, leading NGT to record violations (15 February 2022).
- Supplementary report (10 August 2022) led NGT to impose Rs. 18 crores as environmental compensation at 2% of turnover (16 September 2022), to be used for environmental restoration.
The appellant contended that it was not a party before the NGT, was not heard, the committee did not follow statutory sampling procedures, and that the findings were scientifically unsustainable.
Supreme Court stayed the compensation during the appeal and ultimately set aside the NGT orders.

Legal Framework Highlighted by the Court

Water Act, 1974:
- Sections 21–22: Detailed statutory procedure for sampling and analysis of sewage and trade effluents, including:
  - Mandatory notice to the occupier or agent at the time of sampling,
  - Splitting samples into two, sealing and countersigning,
  - Sending to specified laboratories, with a right to counter-analysis,
  - Admissibility in evidence only if the statutory procedure is followed.
- Section 24: Prohibition on discharge of polluting matter into streams/wells/sewers/land.
- Section 43: Penalty for contravention of Section 24.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:
- Sections 7, 8: Prohibitions on emitting pollutants and handling hazardous substances except as per law.
- Amendments effective 1 April 2024: Sections 14A, 15, 15A—monetary penalties for contraventions and for companies (contextual backdrop to regulatory penalties).
NGT Act, 2010:
- Section 14: Jurisdiction on substantial questions of environment.
- Section 15: Relief/compensation/restitution powers.
- Section 17: Liability and apportionment; no-fault principle in accidents.
- Section 19(1): NGT is not bound by CPC but must be guided by the principles of natural justice; proceedings are judicial.

Key Holdings (Ratio)

NGT cannot bypass the Water Act’s statutory sampling protocol in Sections 21–22 and cannot predicate findings/compensation on samples collected in breach of that procedure.
Ad hoc joint committee findings are not a substitute for judicial adjudication; expert inputs assist but cannot replace NGT’s adjudicatory role.
Failure to implead and hear the project proponent and to allow objections to committee reports violates Section 19(1) of the NGT Act and natural justice.
Orders imposing severe civil consequences (e.g., environmental compensation) without these safeguards are illegal and void.
Fresh action by the pollution control board is permissible, but only upon strict compliance with the statutory framework and natural justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262:
- Expanded the ambit of natural justice beyond judicial/quasi-judicial functions to administrative actions; natural justice supplements law to avert miscarriage of justice.
- Here, it underpins the Court’s insistence that even in NGT’s unique procedures, fair hearing and unbiased decision-making are indispensable.
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594:
- Administrative authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers must record reasons.
- Supports the Court’s critique that NGT accepted committee reports and quantified compensation without a reasoned adjudication on contested facts.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2021):
- NGT may initiate suo motu action but must provide an opportunity of hearing before adverse orders.
- Applied to emphasize that even heightened environmental vigilance cannot eclipse audi alteram partem.
T. Takano v. SEBI (2022) 8 SCC 162:
- Due disclosure of materials relied upon is essential; open justice requires transparency and fairness.
- Informs the requirement that committee reports and underlying data be shared with the affected party for a meaningful opportunity to contest.
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RAJESH AGARWAL (2023) 6 SCC 1:
- Natural justice is a substantive guarantee against arbitrariness; every decision with civil consequences must observe it.
- Anchors the finding that NGT’s non-impleadment/non-hearing vitiated its orders.
Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat (2023) 13 SCC 525 and Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Union of India (2021) 17 SCC 827:
- Expert committees can assist but cannot displace the tribunal’s adjudicatory role; parties must be allowed to object to such reports.
- Directly engaged with NGT’s reliance on a joint committee in lieu of adjudication.
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024):
- NGT cannot condemn a person unheard; refusal to implead and sole reliance on a committee report is antithetical to natural justice.
- Parallel fact pattern; decisive authority guiding the outcome here.
Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Company Ltd. (2025):
- Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary/compensatory damages or seek bank guarantees ex-ante under Water and Air Acts, but only through subordinate legislation embodying natural justice.
- Reinforces the proposition that even preventive/remedial tools must be embedded in due process.

Legal Reasoning

Statutory primacy of Water Act sampling:
- Sections 21–22 prescribe a complete code for sampling, analysis, admissibility, and delivery of results to the occupier. Non-compliance renders results inadmissible in legal proceedings.
- The joint committee report did not demonstrate compliance with notice, split samples, sealing/countersigning, or laboratory routing required by statute.
- NGT cannot dilute or bypass this regime by resorting to an ad hoc committee’s findings.
Natural justice as a non-derogable procedural floor:
- Section 19(1) of the NGT Act expressly binds the Tribunal to natural justice, even as it is freed from the CPC.
- Not impleading the appellant or giving an opportunity to rebut the committee reports contravened audi alteram partem and the duty to fairly adjudicate.
Role of expert committees:
- Committees may undertake technical fact-finding, but NGT must adjudicate—receive objections, conduct hearings, record reasons, and apply the law to proved facts.
- Here, NGT effectively outsourced its function and then treated the committee’s conclusions as determinative without due process.
Remedial choice—no remand:
- Since the foundational statutory procedure (Sections 21–22) was not observed, a remand to NGT would not cure the defect; the entire edifice was infirm.
- Hence, orders were set aside, with liberty to UPPCB to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Impact and Implications

On NGT’s Procedure

Impleadment and hearing of the project proponent are mandatory before any adverse findings or directions, including environmental compensation.
Committee reports are auxiliary aids and must be shared; parties must be permitted to file objections and be heard.
Where the Water Act applies, the Section 21–22 sampling regime is a jurisdictional prerequisite for evidentiary reliance on effluent analyses.
Adjudicatory reasons must be recorded; compensation cannot be quantified on a turnover percentage basis without proven violations through admissible evidence and a reasoned assessment.

On Pollution Control Boards (CPCB/State PCBs)

Field inspections intended to support legal action must adhere to Sections 21–22:
- Give contemporaneous notice of sampling to the occupier/agent,
- Split and seal samples with countersignatures,
- Route to notified laboratories; provide occupier’s counter-analysis rights,
- Serve analysis reports per Section 22(2).
For ex-ante restitutionary/compensatory measures under Section 33A (Water Act) or Section 31A (Air Act), ensure subordinate legislation/SOPs embody natural justice, consistent with DPCC v. Lodhi.

On Industry and Project Proponents

The decision does not exonerate alleged polluters on merits; it enforces process discipline. Fresh proceedings can follow if statutory protocols are observed.
Maintain contemporaneous environmental records (ETP logs, flowmeter data, hazardous waste records) to respond effectively during statutory sampling and adjudication.

On Environmental Litigants and Communities

The judgment does not diminish access to environmental justice; it insists that outcomes be anchored in statutory evidence and fair hearing.
Well-documented complaints and insistence on statutory sampling can strengthen enforceability and durability of outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Audi alteram partem: The right to be heard before an adverse decision is made.
Statutory sampling (Water Act Sections 21–22): A legally mandated, stepwise process for collecting and analyzing effluent/water samples, designed to ensure reliability, chain-of-custody, and fairness by allowing the occupier’s participation and counter-analysis.
NGT’s role vs. Expert Committees: NGT is a judicial body that must decide. Expert committees can collect data and offer technical insight, but their reports are not binding determinations unless adjudicated upon after hearing parties.
BOD/COD/TSS/TDS:
- BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand—organic pollutant indicator.
- COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand—oxidizable pollution indicator.
- TSS: Total Suspended Solids—particles in water.
- TDS: Total Dissolved Solids—dissolved ions/salts.
MLSS/MLVSS: Biomass concentration indicators in aeration tanks; low levels may suggest suboptimal treatment capacity.
Ex-ante restitutionary/compensatory measures: Monetary deposits or bank guarantees taken in advance to guard against potential environmental damage, permissible when backed by law and due process.

Practical Compliance Checklist Triggered by This Judgment

For NGT Benches

Implead the project proponent and all materially affected parties.
Disclose committee reports and underlying data; invite objections.
Insist that any laboratory analyses relied upon comply with Sections 21–22 evidence requirements.
Record reasoned findings on violation, causation, quantum, and remediation before imposing compensation.

For Pollution Control Boards

Train field staff on Section 21–22 compliance and documentation.
Use notified laboratories and maintain chain-of-custody records.
Serve analysis reports on occupiers per Section 22(2); preserve copies for court.
Frame or update subordinate legislation/SOPs for ex-ante measures incorporating notice and hearing.

For Industries

Ensure flowmeters are installed and functional at relevant points and maintain ETP logbooks.
Maintain records for hazardous wastes, boiler ash, press mud, and groundwater abstraction as per consents and authorizations.
Prepare to participate in statutory sampling, including countersigning and securing counter-analysis.

Conclusion

This judgment re-centers environmental adjudication on two pillars: statutory compliance and natural justice. The Supreme Court declares that NGT’s specialized remit does not permit it to bypass the Water Act’s evidentiary safeguards or the basic right to be heard. Expert committee reports are valuable inputs, but they cannot supplant adjudication. Environmental compensation—particularly high-stakes orders based on turnover—must be premised on admissible evidence and reasoned determinations made after a fair hearing.

The ruling does not dilute environmental protection; rather, it strengthens the legitimacy and resilience of environmental enforcement by insisting on process integrity. It sets a procedural benchmark for NGT, PCBs, and industries alike, ensuring that robust environmental outcomes are achieved lawfully and sustainably.

Key Takeaways

NGT must implead and hear the affected project proponent before issuing adverse orders.
Water Act Sections 21–22 sampling and analysis procedures are mandatory; non-compliant results cannot undergird legal liability.
Expert committee reports assist but cannot replace judicial adjudication; parties must be allowed to object.
Compensation orders must rest on admissible evidence and reasoned findings; percentage-of-turnover shortcuts without due proof are unsustainable.
Fresh regulatory action is permitted, but only through strict adherence to statutory procedure and natural justice.