The six-month limitation is unforgiving
An application to the National Green Tribunal generally has to be filed within six months of the date the cause of action first arose, a period the Tribunal can extend by a further sixty days where sufficient cause is shown, but not beyond that. This is considerably shorter than the limitation period for an ordinary civil suit, and it catches out applicants who spend months writing to the pollution control board or the municipal authority before considering the Tribunal at all. Where a client has a genuine environmental grievance, working out this timeline should happen at the very first meeting, not later.
The principles the Tribunal actually applies
The Tribunal applies the polluter pays principle, under which the party responsible for pollution bears the cost of remedying it and compensating those affected, and the precautionary principle, under which the absence of full scientific certainty is not by itself a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental harm. These are not abstract slogans; they shape how the Tribunal allocates the burden of proof and assesses whether an activity should be permitted to continue pending a full hearing.
Challenging an environmental clearance
A challenge to an environmental clearance typically focuses on defects in the process, such as an inadequate environmental impact assessment, absence of proper public consultation, or a clearance granted without addressing a specific risk the project raises. These challenges usually need to be brought promptly, since a project that proceeds to construction while a challenge is pending creates its own practical difficulties, including arguments about balance of convenience if interim relief is sought later than it should have been.
Technical evidence carries real weight
Unlike many other tribunals, the National Green Tribunal often relies on expert and technical evidence, including its own appointed committees, to assess questions such as pollution levels, the adequacy of mitigation measures or the extent of ecological damage. A complaint or defence that is not backed by credible technical material, whether laboratory reports, expert assessment or documented compliance records, tends to carry less weight than one that is, which makes early evidence-gathering a genuine priority rather than a formality.
