Evaluate the role and limitations of the National Green Tribunal vis-à-vis the Supreme Court in adjudicating environmental disputes.

The National Green Tribunal, created under the NGT Act, 2010 for "effective and expeditious" disposal of environmental cases [1], has become India's frontline green court. The Supreme Court's August 2026 order setting aside the NGT's ruling against the Art of Living Foundation over the Yamuna floodplains [3] illustrates both its reach and its subordinate position.

Role: a specialised, accessible forum

• Statutory jurisdiction over civil disputes under seven environmental laws, with power to award relief, compensation and restitution of the environment [1].
• Domain expertise: benches combine judicial and expert members, with a mandate to decide within six months [1][2] — unavailable in ordinary courts.
• Preventive intervention: before the 2016 World Culture Festival the NGT extracted a ₹5 crore interim environmental compensation, and its expert panel assessed floodplain restoration at over ₹42 crore across a decade [3].
• Doctrinal enforcement of the precautionary and polluter pays principles, judicially entrenched in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (1996) [4], and sustained institutional follow-up — DDA's floodplain rejuvenation continues regardless of the appeal outcome [3][5].

Limitations vis-à-vis the Supreme Court

• Appellate subordination: Section 22 allows appeal to the Supreme Court, which reversed the NGT's liability finding, holding that a direct causal link must be shown and that the site was already degraded [1][3].
• Confined jurisdiction: laws such as the Wildlife (Protection) Act lie outside Schedule I, and the NGT has no writ jurisdiction under Articles 32/226 — constitutional and fundamental-rights questions rest with the higher judiciary.
• Capacity constraints: member vacancies, few zonal benches and weak execution powers dilute the six-month promise [2].
• Accountability gaps: liability was fastened on the organiser, while the Court faulted DDA's permission on an active floodplain as avoidable [3].

The NGT is thus an indispensable specialist first instance, and the Supreme Court a corrective conscience-keeper. Filling vacancies, widening the Tribunal's statutory schedule and holding permission-granting authorities equally answerable would let both institutions jointly realise the public trust doctrine and Article 48-A's promise of ecological protection.