Environment Support ... v. National Biodiversit...

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by the Environment Support Group and Mr. Leo F. Saldanha as party-in-person. The petitioners sought to declare Section 40 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 illegal and unconstitutional and prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash a notification dated 26-10-2009 issued under Section 40 of the Act. Additional respondents were added after filing. The petitioners and an applicant in a related application argued that the notification would cause serious prejudice to national interest and biodiversity if not quashed and proper guidelines were not issued by the National Biodiversity Authority.

Respondents contended, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India, that the matter should be transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), as the NGT has jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The petitioner disputed the NGT's jurisdiction to decide constitutional validity of Section 40 of the Act, but respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India that litigants cannot bypass tribunals by approaching High Courts directly. Further, the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. R. Gandhi was cited to affirm Parliament’s competence to constitute tribunals like the NGT for resolving disputes under specific laws.

It was acknowledged that the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is covered by Schedule-I of the NGT Act and that the NGT has jurisdiction to decide substantial questions relating to enforcement and disputes arising from the Act. Accordingly, this Court ordered the petition and interim applications to be transferred to the appropriate Bench of the National Green Tribunal for further adjudication without considering the merits.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Section 40 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Whether the notification dated 26-10-2009 issued under Section 40 of the Act should be quashed.
3. Whether the National Green Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes and constitutional questions arising under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
4. Whether the petition should be retained by the High Court or transferred to the National Green Tribunal in light of the Apex Court’s rulings.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The petitioners sought to declare Section 40 of the Biological Diversity Act illegal and unconstitutional.
• They prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 26-10-2009 issued under Section 40.
• They argued that the notification would cause serious prejudice to national interest and biodiversity of certain plants and herbs if not quashed and proper guidelines were not issued by the National Biodiversity Authority.
• Petitioner No. 1 contended that the National Green Tribunal may lack jurisdiction to examine and decide upon the constitutional validity of Section 40.

Respondents' Arguments

• Respondents relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India to assert that the petition should be transferred to the National Green Tribunal.
• They argued that the National Green Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide matters arising under the Biological Diversity Act as it is covered by Schedule-I of the NGT Act.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India to emphasize that litigants cannot bypass tribunal jurisdiction by approaching High Courts directly, even when challenging the vires of legislation.
• They also cited the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. R. Gandhi to support the legislative competence of Parliament to constitute tribunals like the NGT to adjudicate disputes not covered by Articles 328A and 323B of the Constitution.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India ((2012) 8 SCC 326)	Direction to transfer environmental matters to the National Green Tribunal and acknowledgment of NGT’s jurisdiction.	The Court ordered transfer of the petition to the National Green Tribunal in accordance with the Supreme Court’s direction.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India ((1997) 3 SCC 261)	Litigants cannot bypass tribunal jurisdiction by approaching High Courts directly, even in constitutional challenges to legislation.	The Court relied on this to reject the petitioners’ contention that the High Court should retain jurisdiction despite the NGT’s role.
Union of India v. R. Gandhi ((2010) 156 Comp Case 392)	Parliament’s legislative competence to constitute tribunals for adjudication of disputes under specific laws, even if not under Articles 328A and 323B of the Constitution.	Supported the validity of the National Green Tribunal’s constitution and jurisdiction over matters arising under the Biological Diversity Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the jurisdictional issue in light of authoritative Supreme Court precedents. It noted that the Apex Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan had directed environmental matters be transferred to the National Green Tribunal, which is empowered under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ concern regarding the NGT’s jurisdiction to decide constitutional validity but relied on the L. Chandra Kumar judgment to emphasize that litigants cannot circumvent tribunal jurisdiction by approaching High Courts directly. The Court further relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, which affirmed Parliament’s competence to establish tribunals for enforcement and adjudication of particular laws. Since the Biological Diversity Act is listed in Schedule-I of the NGT Act, the Court found that the NGT has jurisdiction to decide substantial questions arising from the Act. Accordingly, the Court ordered the transfer of the petition and interim applications to the NGT without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge or other contentions.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is to transfer the petition and all interim applications to the National Green Tribunal for further adjudication and orders. The Court disposed of the petition as transferred, explicitly refraining from entering into the merits of the case.

The direct effect is that the High Court will no longer entertain the petition, and the National Green Tribunal will have the authority to adjudicate the matters raised, including any constitutional questions related to Section 40 of the Biological Diversity Act. The decision does not establish new precedent but follows the binding directions of the Supreme Court regarding tribunal jurisdiction and procedure.