The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has strongly reprimanded the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) for failing to comply with its earlier order for over a year, calling the delay “wholly unreasonable and unacceptable.” The tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on the pollution watchdog while warning that continued non-compliance could invite prosecution of top officials.
Delay Attributed to Office Shift Rejected
DPCC had submitted that the delay in transferring funds to the Department of Forest and Wildlife, Government of NCT Delhi, occurred due to relocation of its office. However, the tribunal dismissed the explanation outright, noting that administrative issues cannot justify prolonged inaction in matters involving environmental remediation.
The bench observed that such delays not only violate tribunal orders but also hamper efforts to address environmental damage, causing inconvenience and slowing restoration work.
Officials Could Face Prosecution
In a stern warning, the tribunal said failure to comply with its directives constitutes an offence and that even the chairman and member secretary of DPCC could be prosecuted. However, taking a lenient view in this instance, the bench refrained from initiating criminal proceedings.
Instead, it opted to impose financial costs to discourage what it described as a “widely prevalent tendency” of ignoring tribunal orders and offering weak justifications afterward.
Compensation Ordered for Environmental Impact
The tribunal directed DPCC to deposit Rs 50,000 as costs, stating that the delay had caused unnecessary inconvenience and slowed environmental restoration efforts. The amount is to serve both as a penalty and a deterrent against future violations.
Message Against Institutional Apathy
The ruling sends a clear message to government agencies that compliance with environmental orders cannot be treated casually. Experts say strict enforcement is essential to ensure accountability and timely action in pollution-related cases, particularly in the national capital where environmental concerns remain acute.
The case highlights growing judicial intolerance toward bureaucratic delays in environmental governance, underscoring the need for prompt coordination between departments to prevent further ecological damage.
