List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta in the case of Raj Singh Gehlot & Ors. v. Amitabha Sen & Ors. (2025) held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot adjudicate disputes which are essentially related to land use, zoning regulations, and town-planning compliance, even if such disputes are projected as environmental concerns. 

What was the Background of Raj Singh Gehlot & Ors. v. Amitabha Sen & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case involved a batch of Special Leave Petitions concerning the Ambience Lagoon Island project in Gurugram. 
• Allegations were made that commercial constructions had been raised on land originally licensed for residential use. 
• The dispute was projected as having environmental implications. 
• Acting on these claims, the NGT passed interim orders imposing environmental compensation. 
• The NGT constituted expert committees to assess alleged violations. 
• One expert committee (Joint Expert Committee) recommended massive penalties including: 
  • A fine of Rs. 138.83 crores. 
  • Rs. 10.33 crores as environmental compensation. 
  • Withholding 25–50% of profits from the developers. 
  • Possible demolition of certain structures in the commercial complex. 
• The core dispute concerned the legality of de-licensing and the permissibility of commercial use of the land under town-planning laws. 
• Connected proceedings regarding these issues were already pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
• The appellant-Ambience Developers challenged the NGT's jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court found that the core dispute was not environmental degradation but the legality of de-licensing and the permissibility of commercial use of the land under town-planning laws. 
• The bench observed that "The dispute relating to the non-adherence of the building plans qua the open and green spaces... the issue of environment was not a substantial question before the NGT thereby justifying its invocation of jurisdiction by the NGT in this matter. Rather, the present matter involved disputed claims of the parties in relation to irregularities in utilisation of the land belonging to the appellant-Ambence Developers in developing the residential colony." 
• The Court reaffirmed that where the dispute essentially concerns land use, zoning, building plan approvals, and town-planning compliance, it falls outside the NGT's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. 
• The Court kept the proceedings pending before NGT in abeyance till the disposal of the pending case before the High Court. 
• The Court directed that the order passed by the NGT directing the formation of the Joint Expert Committee, which recommended the imposition of massive fines and penalties, shall not be acted upon for now. 

What is the National Green Tribunal (NGT)? 

About:  

• It is a specialised body set up under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. 
• With the establishment of the NGT, India became the third country in the world to set up a specialised environmental tribunal, only after Australia and New Zealand, and the first developing country to do so. 
• NGT is mandated to make disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing of the same. 
• The NGT has five places of sittings, New Delhi is the Principal place of sitting and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai are the other four. 

Structure of NGT: 

• Composition:  
  • The Tribunal comprises of the Chairperson, the Judicial Members and Expert Members. They shall hold office for term of three years or till the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and are not eligible for reappointment.  
• Appointment:  
  • The Chairperson is appointed by the Central Government in consultation with Chief Justice of India (CJI). 
  • A Selection Committee shall be formed by central government to appoint the Judicial Members and Expert Members. 
• Strength:  
  • There are to be least 10 and maximum 20 full time Judicial members and Expert Members in the tribunal. 

Powers & Jurisdiction: 

• Regulation: 
  • Section 19 of the NGT Act, 2010 gives power to NGT to regulate its own procedure. 
• Jurisdiction Over Civil Cases:  
  • The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases involving substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment). 
  • In October 2021, the Supreme Court declared the NGT’s position as a “unique” forum endowed with suo motu (on its own motion) powers to take up environmental issues across the country. 
• Appellate Jurisdiction:  
  • Being a statutory adjudicatory body like Courts, apart from original jurisdiction side on filing of an application, NGT also has appellate jurisdiction to hear appeal as a Court (Tribunal). 
• Natural Justice:  
  • The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (CPC) and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) but shall be guided by principles of 'natural justice'. 
• Polluter Pays Principle: 
  • While passing any order/decision/ award, it shall apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. 
• Power:  
  • Relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance), 
  • For restitution of property damaged, and 
  • For restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit. 
  • An order/decision/award of Tribunal is executable as a decree of a civil court. 
• Penalties:  
  • Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, 
  • Fine which may extend to ten crore rupees, and 
  • Both fine and imprisonment. 
• Appeal:  
  • An appeal against order/decision/ award of the NGT lies to the Supreme Court, generally within ninety days from the date of communication. 
• Major Laws: 
  • The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, 
  • The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, 
  • The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, 
  • The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, 
  • The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, 
  • The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and 
  • The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. 
  • Any violation pertaining to these laws or any decision taken by the Government under these laws can be challenged before the NGT. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Giriraj & Ors. v. Mohd. Amir & Ors. (2025) directed the Allahabad High Court to dispose of a pending application for vacating an interim order, emphasizing compliance with Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  

What was the Background of Giriraj & Ors. v. Mohd. Amir & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The Allahabad High Court had passed an interim order of status quo in a writ petition. 
• The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging this interim order. 
• An application for vacating the interim order had been filed before the High Court in January 2025. 
• Despite the passage of time, the application remained pending without disposal as of January 16, 2026. 
• The matter was listed before the High Court for hearing on January 19, 2026. 
• The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking relief against the continuing interim order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. 
• The Court heard submissions from learned advocates appearing for both parties. 
• The bench highlighted Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, which contains a specific mandate regarding disposal of applications for vacating interim orders. 
• The Court noted that Article 226(3) requires the High Court to dispose of such applications within a period of two weeks from the date of filing. 
• The Court emphasized that despite this constitutional provision, the application had been pending since January 2025 without disposal. 
• Taking note of the submissions that the matter was already listed before the High Court on January 19, 2026, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to take up the application and dispose of it on its own merits. 
• The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions made by the parties. 
• The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition in view of the directions issued to the High Court. 
• All pending applications before the Supreme Court were also disposed of accordingly. 

What is Article 226 of the COI?  

About:  

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -  
• Located within its jurisdiction or 
• Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.  
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
•  It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights. 

Writs available under Article 226:  

• Writ of Habeas Corpus:  
  • It is a Latin phrase which means ‘to have a body or to produce a body’.  
  • This is the most often used writ.  
  • When a person is wrongfully held by the government, that person, or his family or friends, can file a writ of Habeas Corpus to have that person released. 
• Writ of Mandamus:  
  • It is a Latin phrase that translates to ‘we command.’ 
  • Mandamus is a judicial command issued to all public authorities to perform public duty.  
  • It is used to execute public duties by constitutional, statutory, non-statutory, universities, courts, and other bodies.  
  • The only requirement for using this writ is that there should be a public duty.
• Writ of Certiorari: 
  • It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be informed.’   
  • It is a command or order issued by the Superior Court to the inferior court.  
  • It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice.  
  • The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error. 
• Writ of prohibition:   
  • It simply means ‘to stop’. 
  • This writ is issued against the inferior court (i.e., subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies) by the Superior Court.
• Writ of Quo warranto:  
  • The term Quo warranto means ‘by what authority’. 
  • It is issued against a private person by what authority he is holding the office on which he has no right.  
  • By this writ, the Court can control the public official appointment, and protect a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he may be entitled.

Case Laws:  

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.  
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.