Mind the expertise gap in NGT

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, envisioned the creation of a watchdog that would combine legal and ecological expertise to strengthen the country’s environmental governance. More than a decade later, the tribunal’s record is, at best, mixed. In its interventions in sand-mining and river pollution cases, the NGT underlined the importance of scientifically established standards and often acted swiftly to enforce them. Its directions on curbing air pollution have also been grounded in careful reading of technical information, though their impact has often been blunted by weak implementation. At the same time, critics have pointed out that several NGT rulings on infrastructure projects do not reflect a rigorous engagement with ecological realities. Now, an investigation by this newspaper has found that the tribunal ruled in favour of project developers in four out of five cases between 2020 and 2025. The government maintains that these decisions reflect the merit of individual cases. However, another finding underscores the need for a more critical lens: Nine of the 13 expert members appointed since 2016 previously held senior positions in the environment ministry. This raises concerns about conflict of interest — and institutional propriety — since the tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction covers key government decisions.

Environmental concerns associated with development projects — including displacement of people, pollution, groundwater depletion, harm to biodiversity, and inadequate waste management — cannot be resolved solely through legal interpretation. They require specialised knowledge. That is why the NGT Act mandates the agency to have 10-20 judicial members and an equal number of expert members. Expert positions in the NGT, however, have rarely been filled, forcing its benches to function without the technical acumen envisioned by the law. The tribunal’s pool of experts has been drawn largely from the Indian Forest Service. While former administrators bring valuable domain knowledge to the table, the complexity of today’s environmental challenges require inputs from scientists, economists, engineers, urban planners and legal scholars. This expertise deficit has contributed to uneven decision-making and raised questions about the NGT’s ability to independently evaluate scientific claims.

Climate change has made environmental governance more complex. An effective watchdog today must be adept at risk assessment and planning adaptation. Strengthening the NGT’s technical capacity will, thus, require more than filling vacancies. It calls for equipping it with multidisciplinary expertise. This newspaper’s investigation should serve as a wake-up call.