In a recent development regarding an application for the Great Nicobar Holistic Development project currently under consideration by the National Green Tribunal, the bench has determined that it will solely reference the pleadings on record submitted by the involved parties. It will refrain from considering sections of the high-powered committee that were not disclosed to the public and were unavailable to the applicant.
The report from the high-powered committee of the Union environment ministry, which addresses the reassessment of the environmental clearance granted to the Great Nicobar project, was presented to the NGT in a sealed envelope and was not accessible to the applicant, Ashish Kothari.
Kothari’s attorney recently submitted an interlocutory application arguing that the sealed cover procedure should be disapproved. “The first respondent’s argument that the HPC report cannot be revealed due to its ‘strategic and national importance and containing confidential and privileged information’ lacks substance and contradicts the facts,” it stated.
HT reported on April 7, 2023, that the NGT had established a high-powered committee, led by the secretary of the Union environment ministry, to reassess the environmental clearance (EC) previously granted by the ministry for the Great Nicobar township and area development project. However, experts have raised concerns regarding how a subordinate authority, overseen by the environment secretary, can review the environmental approval issued by its own ministry.
The recent interim application indicated that considering such a HPC report without providing a copy to the applicant would breach the principle of natural justice.
The submission from the learned Counsel for the Applicant asserts that either a copy of the High-Powered Committee’s report should be provided to the Counsel for the Applicant, or the adjudication of the OA should be confined to the pleadings on record submitted by the respective parties. Furthermore, he argues that reviewing such a report without supplying a copy to the Applicant would contravene the principle of natural justice. He also noted that no national security concerns were raised in this matter; thus, the oral argument presented to deny a copy of the report should not be upheld,” as stated in the NGT order dated November 21.
Additionally, to support this submission, he has relied on several Supreme Court orders in the cases of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India, and Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India, among others.
The counsel for the Centre indicated that there is no objection to the original application being resolved based on the pleadings, provided that the report from the high-powered committee is not taken into consideration. She further asserted that the issue of national security was previously raised in the pleadings and is not a new argument, as per the NGT order.
“During the final arguments presented by the Counsel for Respondent No. 1, the Tribunal was assured of the existence of the High-Powered Committee report referenced in the pleadings of Respondent No. 1, and the information disclosed in the pleadings aligns with the report of the High-Powered Committee. The report has not been provided to the Applicant under the claim of national security, nor has it been submitted to the record, as it was promptly returned to the Counsel for MoEFCC after a brief review. Therefore, in light of the judgments cited by the Counsel for the Applicant, we do not wish to extend our review beyond the pleadings or rely on any portion of the High-Powered Committee report that is not part of the record,” the bench remarked.
The bench has stated that all parties have concluded their arguments while reserving its final judgment on the original application.
