Supreme Court of India· 22 August 2026
Can the NGT order rehabilitation of a site under Section 15 of the NGT Act?
Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors
2026 INSC 910 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2018
Coram: Satish Chandra Sharma; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Answer
No. Section 15 provides for restitution or restoration of the environment and compensation in lieu thereof. Rehabilitation refers to complete reparation of the affected area so that it becomes fully functional and provides optimum ecological services, whereas restoration refers to bringing the affected area back to its original state, regardless of how optimum the original state was. In equating the two the Tribunal missed the fine distinction and exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 15.
Headnote
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s.15 — s.17(3) — Restoration and rehabilitation distinguished — Polluter pays principle — No fault liability — Causal link — Interim order —
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s.15 — Restoration is not rehabilitation —
Held: Rehabilitation means complete reparation so that the affected area becomes fully functional, while restoration means bringing it back to its original state regardless of how optimum that state was. Section 15 permits restitution or restoration; ordering rehabilitation exceeds that jurisdiction. (¶46, 47)
Environmental law — Polluter pays principle — Causal link with the alleged polluter —
Held further: The principle is contingent upon the causation of real damage and a causal link between the actions of the project proponent and the degradation. The alleged person must be a polluter before being held absolutely liable in law. (¶53)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s.17(3) — No fault applies to an accident —
Held further: Sub-section (3) of Section 17 specifically applies to the case of an accident, the word referring to cases involving hazards such as a gas leak. It cannot found liability where no accident is in question. (¶52)
Practice and procedure — Findings in an interim order — Without prejudice order —
Held further: Findings in an interim order are interim because they rest on no full analysis of facts and evidence; treated as permanently binding, the order ceases to be interim and assumes finality. Impugned judgment set aside. (¶34)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 46In our view, the Tribunal fell in error in equating the distinct concepts of rehabilitation and restoration. Going by its plain meaning in the context of environmental jurisprudence, rehabilitation refers to complete reparation of the affected area in a manner that it becomes fully functional and provides optimum ecological services. Restoration, however, refers to a process whereby the affected area is simply brought back to its original state, regardless of how optimum the original state was. Whereas the focus of rehabilitation is to achieve optimum ecological functionality; the focus of restoration is to achieve the original state, irrespective of functionality. No doubt, rehabilitation is supposed to be the ideal end goal for any ecologically affected area, however, we are not contemplating the same in this lis. The task of rehabilitation of public resources falls upon the shoulders of the State and it must be undertaken by the State by upholding the spirit of public trust doctrine and the principle of intergenerational equity. The responsibility of private persons gets triggered when environmental damage or degradation is attributable to them.
Paragraph 47The present matter pertains to alleged environmental damage by one party and if so proved, the ascertainment of environmental compensation payable by that party for restoration of the area to its original state. The Tribunal, while deciding the subject matter in question, was exercising its powers under Section 15 of NGT Act, which provides for restitution/restoration of the environment and compensation in lieu thereof. In the exercise of this power, the Tribunal could have ordered the compensation for restoration or restitution of the event site to its original condition. However, the same was clearly ruled out as the expert committee itself admitted in its report dated 28.11.2016 that the original ecological condition of the event site could not be known. In order to take the proceeding to a logical conclusion, the expert committee exceeded its own mandate and proposed full-fledged rehabilitation of the floodplain in view of its earlier recommendations in the Yamuna matter, and the Tribunal got swayed and ended up passing directions for rehabilitation of the floodplain. In doing so, it missed the fine distinction between rehabilitation and restitution/restoration, and exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 15 of NGT Act. Notably, even the expert committee underscored this distinction in its report dated 28.11.2016 and specifically observed that “ecological rehabilitation is not similar to ecological restoration in the sense that the impacted site is restored to some states of riparian ecosystems that render ecological functions/services and may not be to restored to its original natural states”.
Acts & Sections
s.15 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s.17 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s.17(3) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →