‘If govt closes its eyes and follows judgments passed, the Yamuna will be clean’

NGT has lived up to its mandate of enforcing environmental protection laws, former NGT chairperson Swatanter Kumar. People are more aware of the environment and their mindset is changing, he tells Shinjini Ghosh

Has the NGT lived up to its objective of ‘expeditious disposals’?

We were trying our best to dispose of cases within a year of their institution. If I am not mistaken, 82% of the cases were disposed of within one year of their institution. I think the aim of expeditious disposal as it was said under the act was achieved.

Has the NGT been able to live up to its mandate of enforcing environmental protection laws?

Environmental laws pertaining to the air, water, biodiversity and other acts have been enforced. There is no doubt about it. There has been stringent orders in various cases, be it Yamuna, brick kilns or industries.

If you see the development of environmental jurisprudence by the NGT in the past few years, you will see that it is growing, both vertical and horizontal. By vertical, I mean the legal principles and by horizontal I mean the practical aspects. Of course, execution of the orders is a problem all over the world and is not unique to our country.

But there are cases where despite the Bench having passed orders three years back, they have still not been complied with. How is it being effective then?

The orders passed by the NGT are orders passed by a civil court. So they have to be executed as if they are orders of the civil court. The point is that when you want to get it enforced, people do enforce. Like I said, implementation and enforcement of tribunal or court orders is a universal issue and not confined to NGT.

However, I feel today there is a change in mindset. People do think and talk about the environment. For example, we had passed directions to take precautions during constructions. Now whenever one notices non-compliance of orders, they complain and object. People are getting aware of the environment.

Is it enough to levy a fine after the damage has been done and does the “Polluter Pays” principle actually act as a deterrent?

Polluter Pays principle is a very strong principle and is a part of the statute in India. It definitely helps as a deterrent. For example, people throwing muck into the Yamuna, were fined ₹5,000 and properties were seized. At least now people have stopped throwing muck into the Yamuna. The river is not clean but steps are being taken and you cannot say that they are not applied.

The issue of severe pollution are problems arising from multiple factors. For instance, for air pollution, you cannot pin-point one source. There are multiple causes involved like construction activities, brick kilns, crop burning and vehicular pollution. So you have to control all the sources and for that the society should work as a whole. The government, litigant and regulator should work and people should discharge their responsibilities.

But what about events like the World Culture Fest where the Yamuna floodplain was severely damaged.

By the time people came to NGT, the damage was already done as everything was ready by then. It was only the holding of the function. That would maximum pollute the river for which it had been stated that all measures had been taken.

Now with the judgment, in future, people will at least think whether they will hold such functions on the floodplain or not. That is the purpose which is done.

As for the cleaning of the Yamuna, if the government just closes its eyes and follows the judgments passed, Yamuna will be cleaned. However, if you will not comply with it in its entirety then it is a separate issue. It is a technically sound comprehensive judgement which is capable of being implemented.

As for air pollution in Delhi, despite recurrent orders of the tribunal, every year Delhi faces the same situation. How effective will these orders be if the government does not comply with it?

Again, the government should just follow the judgment because it tells you what one should do normally. The judgment talks of what one should do in normal conditions, followed by what to do when the parameters increase and finally steps to be taken when the non-permissible limits are reached. If you follow the first stage throughout then the second and final stages will never arise.

It is the will to implement and the collective effort that matters. If everybody comes together, then the government has to implement. Common man is a powerful weapon and if people get together, then the government has to implement no matter which government it is.

The current vacancies in the tribunal have been affecting the disposals…

Naturally it will be affected but I believe it is being worked out.