Supreme Court 2017: SPCBs Must Have Experts, Not Politicians - Techi Tagi Tara On
Article 48A Duty. The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Rajendra Singh Bhandari on
22.09.2017 examined whether NGT can direct States to remove unqualified SPCB
members. The Court said no, but directed States to frame rules to ensure only
professionals are appointed. The Court called SPCBs "high powered and specialized
statutory bodies" critical for environment. This blog explains Techi Tagi Tara vs
Bhandari on SPCB composition and constitutional duties.
Jurisdiction: NGT Cannot Decide Appointments. The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi
Tara vs Bhandari para 16-18: NGT jurisdiction under Section 14 NGT Act is only over
"substantial question relating to environment" and "dispute" capable of relief under
Section 15.The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Appointment of
Chairperson/member is "substantial question relating to appointment", not environment.
Not a "dispute" as defined in Prabhakar vs Joint Director.The Supreme Court in Techi
Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Proper remedy is writ of quo warranto in High Court. The
Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: So NGT order set aside. But those
removed can challenge removal independently.
Why Professional Appointments Matter: 20 Years Of Warnings Ignored. The
Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Since 1997 MoEF has written to States.
2001 Coimbatore Conference recommended induction of academicians, legal
professionals, health experts.The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: 2005
SCMC letter noted Chairpersons appointed: Chief Secretaries, MLAs, literary persons,
non-technical persons. Member Secretaries from IFS/PWD without qualifications.The
Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Jharkhand HC 2002 removed Chairman
with no knowledge, only "politico-social worker".The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara
vs Bhandari: Despite all this, "State Governments continued to display disinterest".
Uttarakhand didn't even frame its own rules since 2001.
Implied Restrictions On Appointment Power. The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara
vs Bhandari para 23: Cited State of Punjab vs Salil Sabhlok: Besides express
restrictions, there are "implied restrictions". State cannot appoint "anybody".The
Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Cited Ashok Kumar Yadav and Dr Ram
Ashray Yadav: Institutions need "competent, honest, independent persons of
outstanding ability" to maintain public faith.The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs
Bhandari para 24: Court can direct executive to frame guidelines for good
governance.The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Water Act Section 4(2)
requires Chairman with "special knowledge or practical experience in environmental
protection". Member Secretary must have scientific/engineering/management
qualifications.
Good Governance And Environmental Protection. The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi
Tara vs Bhandari para 3: "Principal attribute of good governance is establishment of
viable institutions comprising professionally competent persons".The Supreme Court in
Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: SPCBs suffer for "at least two decades" due to lack of
empowerment and professionalism.The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari:
With "couldn't-care-less attitude, environment and public trust are immediate
casualties".The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs Bhandari: Final direction: States to
frame rules in 6 months. "Only best should be appointed to SPCB".
Conclusion
Techi Tagi Tara vs Rajendra Singh Bhandari clarifies state pollution control board
appointment qualifications supreme court law. Supreme Court 22.09.2017 held NGT
has no power, but States have duty under Article 48A to appoint experts. Court relied on
4 committee reports and TISS study showing political appointments. Court warned of
quo warranto petitions if unqualified persons continue. As the law stands, environment
protection requires institutional competence. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Techi Tagi
Tara vs Bhandari is key for governance of environmental regulators.
