LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 22 August 2026

Does Section 17(3) of the NGT Act apply the no fault principle outside an accident?

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
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.15 National Green Tribunal Act…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 specifically applies to the cause of an accident, and the word “accident” would refer to cases involving hazards, such as gas leak. Where the proceeding does not concern the consequences of any accident, liability cannot rest on Section 17(3), though the polluter pays principle itself has assumed a place of permanence in our environmental jurisprudence.

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 52Section 17 provides that where any injury is caused to the environment as a result of the adverse impact of any activity, the person responsible for such activity shall be responsible for the injury. Sub-section (3) of the provision specifically applies to the cause of an accident. The Tribunal has relied upon Section 17(3) of the Act, however, it is quite evident that we are not dealing with the consequences of any accident. The word “accident” would refer to cases involving hazards, such as gas leak, etc. Nevertheless, polluter pays principle has assumed a place of permanence in our environmental jurisprudence and Section 17 is merely a legislative manifestation of the same. Therefore, there is no doubt in the proposition that the polluter must pay and must be held as absolutely liable for environmental degradation caused by it.
Acts & Sections
s.15 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s.17 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s.17(3) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can the NGT order rehabilitation of a site under Section 15 of the NGT Act?Can the polluter pays principle apply without proof that the person caused the damage?Can findings in an interim order be treated as final during the same proceeding?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections