Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 2022 SC 2713

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA

Whether the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“Act”) infringes upon the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the provision of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is constitutionally valid?
Whether Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires to the Constitution due to excessive delegation of legislative power?

The delegation of legislative power is permissible if it is necessary to fulfil the objectives of a statute, but the delegation must not result in excessive delegation or a transfer of core legislative functions to the executive.
The jurisdiction of High Courts can be restricted in matters where specialized tribunals have been created for adjudication of complex subject matters. However, the jurisdiction of High Courts cannot be completely ousted by the creation of such tribunals.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association filed a petition challenging the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“Act”), arguing that Sections 14 and 22 of the Act undermine the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
The petitioners contend that by excluding the jurisdiction of the High Courts in environmental matters, the Act limits access to justice and violates constitutional principles.
The petitioners also contested the provision under Section 22 of the NGT Act as it bypasses the High Courts, and in the absence of an appeal mechanism, there is a limitation of the judicial review process.

The Supreme Court held that Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 as they have the power to issue writs.
The Court upheld the provision for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the Act. It clarified that although the statute provides for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the remedies under Articles 226 and 227 before the High Court remain intact and are not extinguished. In light of such choices being available to a litigant, there is no rational justification to strike down the Section. The Court ruled that Section 3 of the NGT Act did not amount to excessive delegation.
It found that the delegation of power to the Union Government for the establishment of NGT benches was within permissible limits. The delegation was guided by the framework set by the Parliament, objectives of the Act and the Supreme Court’s directions.
The petition was dismissed and the Act was upheld.