- within Environment topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
- in Canada
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Technology and Metals & Mining industries
Introduction
In the contemporary regulatory landscape, regulated entities such as industrial units, infrastructure and construction projects, and waste-processing facilities routinely face significant operational, financial, and contractual disruptions upon the issuance of closure directions or show-cause notices by Pollution Control Boards (PCB). Challenges to such regulatory actions are increasingly framed around procedural impropriety, denial of natural justice, excessive or disproportionate exercise of statutory powers, and instances where alleged environmental violations remain unsubstantiated by cogent evidence.
Recent jurisprudence in 2025, particularly from the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court, has further clarified the principles governing the grant or refusal of interim relief, balancing environmental protection and sustainable development against the need to safeguard legitimate business and economic interests. Against this evolving backdrop, the Emergency Playbook draws upon current judicial trends to guide regulated entities in strategising challenges before the NGT, drafting effective pleadings, seeking interim stays, and understanding the circumstances in which such relief is likely to be declined.
Understanding The NGT
What is NGT's mandate
A National Green Tribunal is being formed under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which gives NGT the authority to decide civil cases that have a substantial question associated with the environment, and ensures that statutory obligations, environmental harm, and a challenge to a decision made under environmental legislation.
The Tribunal is not bound by the procedural rigours of the Code of Civil Procedure and is guided instead by principles of natural justice, equity, sustainable development, and the precautionary and polluter-pays doctrines. Owing to its specialised jurisdiction and expedited process, the NGT has become a preferred forum for challenging closure orders, environmental violations, and consent or clearance-related disputes.
When Can the NGT Be Approached Against PCB Orders?
NGT may be approached where a PCB order is passed under Schedule I environmental statutes or where the order suffers from procedural illegality, denial of hearing, violation of natural justice, or arbitrariness, or where required environmental clearance or consent to operate is absent, expired, irregular, or allegedly non-complied with or where environmental protection can be ensured through a credible compliance or remedial plan without complete closure or and where shutdown would cause disproportionate and irreversible harm to contracts, employment, investments, or livelihood, while conditional operation would not pose environmental risk.
In such situations, NGT's jurisdiction makes it possible to challenge the order or at least seek interim/conditional relief, provided pleadings are well-founded.
Guide to Filing a Case before NGT (Including Interim Relief/Stay Application)
| Step | Key Action |
|---|---|
| 1. Review PCB order | Verify valid issuance and service, opportunity of hearing, statutory compliance, and status of consents/clearances. |
| 2. Compile evidence | Collect the impugned order, CTE/CTO, EC (if any), inspection and audit reports, monitoring data, pollution-control records, site visuals, and PCB correspondence. |
| 3. Assess compliance | Evaluate existing safeguards and prepare a time-bound remediation and monitoring plan. |
| 4. Engage counsel | Appoint counsel experienced in environmental and NGT litigation. |
| 5. Draft pleadings | File OA stating facts and legal grounds, and I.A. seeking stay or conditional operation. |
| 6. File before NGT | Ensure correct parties and proper filing to avoid jurisdictional defects. |
| 7. Seek relief | Pray for interim stay/conditional operation and final relief with compliance directions. |
| 8. Submit compliance plan | Attach a concrete remediation roadmap with audits and financial guarantees. |
| 9. Comply with orders | Strictly adhere to interim directions and prepare for final hearing. |
This is a simplified procedure that boosts the chances of preliminary relief in front of the NGT.
Interim Relief/ Stay Orders
The Hon'ble Supreme Court and NGT tribunal, in recent judgments, have categorically stipulated the extent and the boundaries of the NGT to issue interim relief against PCB closure or regulatory orders. Courts have become very strict concerning statutory thresholds and jurisdictional discipline.
When Interim Relief/Stay be Denied
In Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors, the Supreme Court decisively curtailed an instance of jurisdictional overreach by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), setting aside its order that had stalled the construction of township roads. The Court found that the dispute did not raise any substantial question relating to the environment, nor did it disclose a violation of any statute listed under Schedule I of the NGT Act.
Emphasising the limits of environmental adjudication, the Supreme Court clarified that the NGT cannot intervene in matters of town planning or development in the absence of a clear and demonstrable breach of environmental law. Policy disagreements or planning objections, howsoever framed, cannot by themselves clothe the Tribunal with jurisdiction or justify interim relief. Reaffirming the doctrine of sustainable development, the Court underscored that environmental protection must operate as a balancing exercise, harmonising ecological concerns with legitimate developmental needs, livelihoods, and economic activity, rather than as a tool to halt development without a statutory foundation.
Conclusion
In Conclusion, the 2025 judicial position emerging from the Supreme Court and the NGT marks a decisive shift towards jurisdictional discipline and outcome-oriented environmental adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has crystallises the principle that the NGT's intervention, particularly through interim or stay orders, must be firmly anchored in a demonstrable violation of Schedule I environmental statutes, and cannot extend to town-planning, policy, or developmental disputes dressed up as environmental concerns. At the same time, the reaffirmation of sustainable development as a constitutional balancing exercise underscores that environmental protection cannot operate in isolation from considerations of livelihood, investment, employment, and economic continuity. For regulated entities facing PCB action, this jurisprudence signals that success before the NGT will increasingly depend on moving beyond abstract objections or delay-centric litigation, and instead adopting a structured strategy rooted in procedural fairness, verifiable compliance, robust technical data, and credible, time-bound remediation plans, supported by precise and restrained legal pleadings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
