Supreme Court sets aside NGT order against Art of Living on Yamuna floodplains
2-minute summary
The Supreme Court of India has set aside a December 2017 National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that held the Art of Living Foundation responsible for damaging the Yamuna floodplains during its 2016 World Culture Festival. A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N.K. Singh directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the ₹5 crore restoration deposit to the foundation's associate, Vyakti Vikas Kendra India. The apex court observed that the NGT failed to consider that the floodplain was already in a damaged condition prior to the event and did not establish any additional damage caused by the foundation. The Court criticized the NGT for relying on a solitary satellite image without corroborating evidence and for converting the dispute into a development project funded by the appellant. However, the Court also criticized the DDA for permitting the event on an active floodplain, calling it inconsistent with the 'precautionary principle' and 'doctrine of public trust.' The DDA must continue its designated rehabilitation work on the floodplains.
Why it's in the news
The Supreme Court has overturned a landmark 2017 National Green Tribunal order that fined the Art of Living Foundation ₹5 crore for ecological damage to the Yamuna floodplains. The ruling highlights critical boundaries in environmental adjudication, evidentiary standards in green tribunals, and the application of the public trust doctrine to state authorities.
Background and context
In March 2016, the Art of Living Foundation organized the World Culture Festival on the Yamuna floodplains in Delhi, drawing widespread environmental concerns regarding the degradation of the river's fragile ecosystem. In December 2017, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruled that the event had caused severe damage to the floodplains' biodiversity and soil, directing the foundation to pay ₹5 crore to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for restoration. The foundation appealed, arguing that the floodplains were already heavily degraded prior to the event due to industrial waste and unauthorized construction, and that the NGT's assessment lacked scientific rigor. The Supreme Court's August 2026 ruling brings an end to this decade-long legal dispute by emphasizing that environmental liability must be based on clear, contemporaneous evidence of additional damage rather than pre-existing degradation.
Constitutional provisions
- Article 21 — Interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment as part of the right to life.
- Article 48A — Directive Principle of State Policy directing the State to endeavor to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
- Article 51A(g) — Fundamental Duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.
Mains practice: Critically analyze the role of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in environmental adjudication in India, highlighting the challenges in its functioning as evidenced by recent judicial reviews.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established under the NGT Act 2010, is a specialized body equipped to handle environmental disputes involving multi-disciplinary issues. While it has played a pioneering role in environmental jurisprudence, recent judicial reviews, such as the Supreme Court's reversal of the NGT's order on the Yamuna floodplains, highlight critical procedural and substantive challenges in its functioning.
• **Evidentiary and Scientific Lacunae**: As observed by the Supreme Court, the NGT sometimes relies on inadequate or non-contemporaneous evidence, such as a solitary satellite image, without rigorous verification. This leads to flawed ecological assessments and arbitrary liability allocation.
• **Overstepping Jurisdiction**: The Supreme Court noted that the NGT altered the dispute's character, converting a damage-assessment proceeding into a fresh development project, thereby unfairly burdening a single entity with the cost of restoring pre-existing degradation.
• **Failure to Hold State Authorities Accountable**: While penalizing private entities, tribunals often overlook the regulatory lapses of state bodies. In this case, the DDA's permission to hold an event on an active floodplain was a clear violation of the Precautionary Principle and the Doctrine of Public Trust, which the NGT failed to adequately address.
• **Need for Balanced Adjudication**: Environmental justice must balance ecological restoration with fair trial standards, ensuring that liability is proportionate to the actual, proven damage caused by the accused party.
To maintain its credibility as a premier environmental arbiter, the NGT must strengthen its scientific assessment standards, avoid arbitrary liability, and ensure that state authorities are held strictly accountable under the public trust doctrine.
Prelims practice questions
Q1. With reference to the 'Doctrine of Public Trust' in Indian environmental jurisprudence, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. It mandates that certain resources like air, water, and forests are held by the government in trust for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. 2. The doctrine acts as a restriction on the state's power to allocate public resources to private parties for commercial purposes. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C. The Doctrine of Public Trust, recognized by the Supreme Court of India, establishes that natural resources like rivers, forests, and air are held by the state as a trustee for the public. The state cannot commit these resources to private ownership or commercial use if it harms the public interest.
Q2. Consider the following statements regarding the 'Precautionary Principle' in environmental law: 1. It suggests that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the environment, the burden of proof falls on those taking the action to show it is not harmful. 2. Under this principle, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C. Both statements accurately define the Precautionary Principle, which is a core tenet of environmental law in India and globally, shifting the burden of proof to the developer and prioritizing preventive action despite scientific uncertainty.
Q3. In the context of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), consider the following statements: 1. The NGT is bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Appeals against the orders of the NGT lie directly to the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: B. Statement 1 is incorrect because the NGT is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but is guided by principles of natural justice. Statement 2 is correct; under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010, appeals against NGT decisions lie directly to the Supreme Court.
Revision flashcards
- What is the 'Doctrine of Public Trust' in environmental law? The legal principle that certain natural resources (like rivers, oceans, and air) are preserved for public use, and the government must protect them as a trustee rather than an owner.
- What is the 'Precautionary Principle'? An environmental principle stating that protective action should be taken in the face of scientific uncertainty to prevent potential ecological damage, placing the burden of proof on the proponent of an activity.
- To which judicial body do appeals against the National Green Tribunal (NGT) orders lie? Directly to the Supreme Court of India (under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010).
- Why did the Supreme Court set aside the NGT's ₹5 crore fine on the Art of Living Foundation in 2026? The SC found the Yamuna floodplain was already damaged prior to the event, the NGT failed to prove additional damage, relied on a single satellite image, and unfairly burdened the foundation with development costs.
- Which statutory authority was criticized by the Supreme Court for permitting the 2016 World Culture Festival on the Yamuna floodplain? The Delhi Development Authority (DDA), for actions inconsistent with the precautionary principle and public trust doctrine.