Penalty Under NGT Act Requires Personal Fault, Not Just a Post”: Supreme Court Quashes Fine and Imprisonment of Bareilly Mayor in Waste Dumping Case

A person can be said to have failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order only if it is shown that such person had the power to prevent the prohibited act” On 23 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in Dr. I.S. Tomar v. Invertis University & Ors. Etc. (2025 INSC 775), clarifying the scope of individual liability under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Court held that personal culpability for environmental violations requires both legal authority and factual responsibility, thereby setting aside the imprisonment and fine imposed on Dr. I.S. Tomar, then Mayor of Bareilly.

The Court also partially allowed the appeals filed by the Bareilly Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner, striking down the Commissioner’s personal sentence, though retaining the Rs. 1 lakh per day penalty imposed on the Corporation for continued dumping of solid waste in violation of NGT orders.

“Penalty Cannot Be Based on Position Alone”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Punishment of Mayor

Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the Bench that also included Justice Augustine George Masih, ruled:

“Section 26(1) of the NGT Act is a penal provision. Therefore, it must be strictly construed… It must be established that it was the appellant who was responsible for dumping solid wastes at the site.”

The Court found no material to show that the then Mayor, Dr. I.S. Tomar, was a party to the proceedings or had executive power to prevent the alleged violations. It emphasized:

“There is no provision of law under which the appellant, being Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, had power to issue any direction to the Corporation.”

Accordingly, the Court held that no penal liability could be fastened merely because of his designation.

On Scandalous Remarks: Apology Accepted, No Contempt Proceeding Warranted

The NGT had earlier taken issue with the Mayor's remarks to the press, where he described its judgment as “one-sided” and “pre-decided.” Though such comments were found highly inappropriate, the Supreme Court noted that:

“The appellant has tendered an unconditional apology… With some reluctance, the NGT accepted the appellant’s apology.”

Having accepted the apology, the Court ruled, “there was no failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the orders,” and hence the invocation of penal provisions was unjustified.

“No Wilful Default Shown”: Commissioner’s Imprisonment Also Set Aside

While maintaining the fine on the Municipal Corporation for failing to clear solid waste as directed, the Court gave relief to the then Commissioner, Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh. It held:

“There is no finding recorded that there was a wilful default on the part of the Commissioner. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment and penalty cannot be justified.”

However, the Municipal Corporation’s failure to clear waste remained undisputed, especially as a Court Commissioner’s report dated 13 August 2013 confirmed ongoing dumping at the prohibited site.

NGT Had Ordered Closure of Illegal Waste Plant

The case stemmed from a solid waste management plant set up in Razau Paraspur village, Bareilly, allegedly without environmental clearance. In July 2013, the NGT ordered its closure, directed removal of all waste, and barred future dumping. Despite a Supreme Court stay on part of the NGT order, allegations surfaced that waste dumping continued.

The NGT found that both the Mayor and Commissioner violated its orders and imposed civil imprisonment and fines, including Rs. 1 lakh per day on the Corporation.

Supreme Court: “Strict Construction of Penal Statutes Is Mandatory”

The Court underscored a cardinal principle of penal jurisprudence:

“To prove failure… it must be shown that the person had the power to prevent the act… As it is not shown that the appellant had executive powers… it is impossible to record a finding of failure to comply.”

It warned against using public office as a basis for presumed liability, especially in the absence of legal authority or actual control over the violations.

Final Relief

“Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014 preferred by Dr. I.S. Tomar are allowed… directions against him in Clause (ii) of paragraph 45 of the impugned Judgment are set aside.”

“Civil Appeal Nos. 5631-5633 of 2024 are partly allowed… directions against Shri Umesh Pratap Singh in Clause (ii) of paragraph 45 are set aside. However, no other part of the impugned Judgment is disturbed.”

This means the daily fine on the Corporation remains, reaffirming institutional accountability, while absolving individuals lacking operative powers from personal penalties.

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025