In a significant turn during the hearing of the application challenging the Great Nicobar Holistic Development project, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has decided to exclude portions of a confidential report from its final consideration. The bench ruled that it will only refer to the pleadings on record that were made available to all parties, ensuring the principle of natural justice is upheld.
The Sealed Cover Controversy
The controversy centered on the report of a High-Powered Committee (HPC), which was constituted by the NGT itself to revisit the environmental clearance (EC) granted to the multi-crore Great Nicobar township and area development project.
- Submission: The HPC report, created by a committee headed by the Union environment ministry secretary, was submitted to the NGT in a sealed cover.
- Withheld Information: Crucially, the full report was not made public and was not provided to the applicant, Ashish Kothari.
- Prior Questions: The very formation of the HPC was previously questioned by experts, who highlighted the ethical dilemma of a subordinate body headed by the environment secretary being asked to revisit a green nod granted by its own ministry (MoEFCC).
Applicant Cites Violation of Natural Justice
Kothari’s lawyer recently filed an interlocutory application specifically challenging the sealed cover process, urging the Tribunal to “deprecate” the practice.
The interim application argued that considering the HPC report without supplying a copy to the applicant would be a direct violation of the principle of natural justice.
- Challenging “National Security”: The application further contested the Centre’s defense, which claimed the report was of “strategic and national importance and has confidential and privileged information.” Kothari’s counsel argued that this justification was “without merit and contrary to the facts,” noting that the plea of national security was not formally established in the matter.
- Legal Precedents: The applicant’s submission, as noted in the NGT order dated November 21, relied on crucial Supreme Court rulings, including S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India, and Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India, which caution against the use of undisclosed material.
NGT’s Final Observation
The Centre’s counsel eventually conceded, stating they had no objection if the Original Application (OA) was decided solely on the basis of the public pleadings, thereby agreeing to the exclusion of the HPC report.
The NGT bench firmly stated its decision: “Hence, considering the judgments relied upon by Counsel for the Applicant, we do not intend to go beyond the pleadings and rely upon any part of the report of the High-Powered Committee which is not on record.” The report, after a brief review, had been immediately returned to the MoEFCC counsel.
With all parties having concluded their arguments, the Tribunal has reserved its final judgement on the Original Application, which is expected to determine the fate of the Great Nicobar Holistic Development project’s environmental clearance.