List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe of the Supreme Court of India, in Narender Bhardwaj v. M/S 108 Super Complex R.W.A. & Others (2026), set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (New Delhi) that had directed the removal of a temple allegedly constructed illegally on land designated as open space/park in Sector – 16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad. 

• The Court held that the NGT's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 is confined to substantial questions of law relating to the environment under statutes enumerated in Schedule I, and that disputes involving unauthorized construction in violation of municipal or town planning laws fall entirely outside this jurisdiction.

What was the Background of Narender Bhardwaj v. M/S 108 Super Complex R.W.A. & Ors. (2026)? 

• A Residents Welfare Association (RWA) approached the National Green Tribunal seeking removal of a temple allegedly constructed on land earmarked as open space/park in Sector – 16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad. 
• The RWA contended that the construction was unauthorized and raised in violation of Municipal Laws and the provisions of the Town Planning Act. 
• The NGT, New Delhi, accepted the plea and passed an order directing the removal of the alleged unauthorized structure. 
• Aggrieved by this order, the appellant — Narender Bhardwaj — challenged the NGT's order before the Supreme Court of India.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act: The Court clarified that Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate only upon substantial questions of law relating to the environment, and only in respect of statutes specifically enumerated in Schedule I — namely the Air Act, Water Act, Forest Act, Environment Protection Act, and other cognate legislations. The jurisdiction of the NGT is not at large; it is strictly circumscribed by this statutory framework. 
• On the Nature of the Dispute: The Court found that the grievance raised by the RWA pertained to the removal of an unauthorized construction allegedly raised in violation of Municipal Laws and the Town Planning Act — neither of which finds mention in Schedule I of the NGT Act. The issue, therefore, was essentially one of municipal law and urban planning, not environmental law. The Court held that such a dispute does not give rise to any substantial question of law relating to the environment within the meaning of the Act. 
• On the NGT's Exercise of Jurisdiction: The Court held that the conditions precedent for invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 14 were simply not fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, the NGT's order directing the removal of the structure was found to be without jurisdiction and was quashed and set aside. 
• On Relief to the RWA: While setting aside the impugned order, the Court preserved the liberty of the RWA to approach the competent authority under the applicable municipal or town planning framework for appropriate redressal of its grievance. 
• On Protection of the Appellants: The Court directed the State not to take any coercive action against the appellants without first issuing notice to them and the affected parties.

What is the National Green Tribunal (NGT)? 

Setup & Background: 

• Established under the NGT Act, 2010 for expeditious disposal of environmental cases. 
• India was the 3rd country globally (after Australia & New Zealand) and 1st developing country to set up a specialised environmental tribunal. 
• Must dispose of cases within 6 months of filing. 

Structure: 

• Comprises Chairperson, Judicial Members, and Expert Members. 
• Term: 3 years or till age 65, whichever is earlier; no reappointment. 
• Strength: minimum 10, maximum 20 full-time members. 
• 5 benches — Principal at New Delhi; others at Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata, Chennai. 

Powers & Jurisdiction: 

• Covers all civil cases involving substantial environmental questions. 
• Has suo motu powers (confirmed by Supreme Court in 2021). 
• Not bound by CPC or Indian Evidence Act; guided by natural justice. 
• Applies polluter pays, precautionary, and sustainable development principles. 
• Orders executable as civil court decrees; appeal lies to Supreme Court within 90 days. 

Penalties: 

• Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to ₹10 crore, or both. 

Key Laws Covered (Schedule I) 

• 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. 
• 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. 

Strengths: 

• Reduces burden on higher courts. 
• Faster, cheaper, less formal than regular courts. 
• Independent adjudication due to no-reappointment rule. 
• Strengthens Environmental Impact Assessment compliance. 

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender of the Madras High Court, in AC Murugesan and Others v. District Collector and Others (2026), dismissed appeals filed by a group of persons seeking declaration of their right to possess land declared as Reserved Forest, holding that continued residence in the forest area and reliance on the forest for livelihood through cultivation are essential and non-negotiable conditions for being declared a forest dweller under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

What was the Background of AC Murugesan & Ors. v. District Collector & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellants claimed that their ancestors had been in possession of forest land, had cultivated it, and had been residing in the forest area for more than 75 years. 
• During the construction of the Panamarathupatti Lake and reservoir, vast extents of land in the area were acquired, affecting the claimed holdings of the appellants. 
• The appellants filed an application before the District Collector seeking declaration of their right to possess the land designated as Reserved Forest. 
• The District Collector rejected their application, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim. 
• The appellants challenged this rejection before the writ court; however, the writ court dismissed their petition. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Madras High Court, reiterating their claim as Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under the Act. 
• The appellants acknowledged that they were presently residing outside the forest area but contended that they continued to cultivate the land, and that their ancestral connection of over 75 years entitled them to relief. 
• The State opposed the claim, submitting that the appellants were not local residents, did not belong to any tribal community, and had no evidence of primary residence or genuine dependence on the forest for livelihood. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Essential Conditions Under the Act: The Court held that two conditions must be conclusively established — residence in the forest area and cultivation for livelihood. In the absence of proof of these foundational requirements, no relief can be granted under the Act. 
• On the Definition of 'Other Traditional Forest Dweller' Under Section 2(o): The Court referred to Section 2(o), which requires that a claimant must have been primarily residing in the forest and dependent on it for bona fide livelihood needs for at least three generations prior to December 13, 2005 — a threshold the appellants had failed to satisfy. 
• On Bona Fide Cultivation vs. Commercial Exploitation: The Court clarified that bona fide cultivation means ploughing, irrigation, and planting for subsistence — not commercial exploitation. Since the forest land was being used commercially, the appellants fell outside the Act's protective scope. 
• On Relocation Outside the Forest Area: Even assuming ancestral residence in the forest, the appellants were presently residing elsewhere. The Court held that this relocation alone disentitled them from claiming forest dweller status, as present residence is an indispensable requirement. 
• On Dismissal of the Appeal: Finding no legal right established by the appellants, the Court upheld the orders of the District Collector and the writ court and dismissed the appeal.

What is the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006? 

Background: 

• Enacted in 2006 and brought into force in 2008; also known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA) or the Van Adhikar Adhiniyam. 
• Enacted to correct the historical injustice suffered by forest-dwelling communities who had been living in and depending on forests for generations but were denied legal recognition of their rights. 
• Gives effect to the constitutional commitment toward Scheduled Tribes and forest-dwelling communities under Articles 14, 21, and 46 of the Constitution. 

Key Provisions: 

• Recognizes and vests individual forest rights (right to cultivate and live on forest land occupied before December 13, 2005) and community forest rights (right to protect, manage, and use community forest resources). 
• Covers Scheduled Tribes residing in forest areas and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers — defined under Section 2(o) as communities residing in forests for at least three generations (75 years) prior to December 13, 2005. 
• Gram Sabha is the primary authority for initiating the process of determination of forest rights. 
• Rights recognized include rights of residence, cultivation, grazing, fishing, and access to forest produce. 

Institutional Mechanism: 

• Claims are decided at three levels — Sub-Divisional Level Committee, District Level Committee, and State Level Monitoring Committee. 
• Final authority to recognize rights vests with the District Level Committee. 
• Gram Sabhas play a central role in verifying and recommending claims. 

Significance: 

• Provides land tenure security to millions of forest-dwelling households. 
• Empowers communities to conserve and manage forests through community forest resource rights. 
• Recognized as a landmark legislation in the intersection of tribal rights, environmental law, and social justice. 
• Over 22 lakh titles have been distributed to forest-dwelling families across India since its implementation.