National Green Tribunal (NGT) Ruling on Varanasi Tent City – Explained
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently ruled that luxury tent cities on the Ganga riverbed in Varanasi, inaugurated by PM Narendra Modi in January 2023, violated environmental norms by lacking pollution board consents and breaching river protection orders. This development highlights ongoing tensions between tourism promotion and ecological safeguards along the Ganga. It carries high relevance for UPSC/OPSC aspirants in environment and current affairs sections.
Case Background
Tent cities like Praveg and Niraan were set up on 11–20 hectares of riverbed near Assi and Chet Singh Ghats via Varanasi Development Authority tenders, operating from January to May 2023 for tourists and pilgrims.
A petition alleged pollution from sewage discharge into the Ganga, harm to flora–fauna, and location on the denotified Kachhua Turtle Wildlife Sanctuary (pending Supreme Court review).
NGT formed a joint committee in March 2023 with NMCG, CPCB, and UP officials, which confirmed violations of the Water and Air Acts, and the 2016 River Ganga Authority orders.
NGT’s Role in the Case
NGT declared operations illegal, upheld environmental compensation of Rs 17.12 lakh (yet unrecovered), and directed UPPCB to enforce it promptly.
The bench barred future tent cities on Ganga banks and tributaries, emphasizing prevention of similar breaches. This reflects NGT’s enforcement of the polluter pays principle via fines and restitution, without delving into the sanctuary denotification.
NGT Static Knowledge
NGT, established on October 18, 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is a quasijudicial body for swift environmental dispute resolution. It is guided by sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle.
It covers seven major laws:
Water Act 1974
Air Act 1981
Environment Protection Act 1986
Forest Conservation Act 1980
Wildlife Protection Act 1972
Biological Diversity Act 2002
Public Liability Insurance Act 1991
Powers include civil court authority, ordering compensation, halting projects, mandating remediation, and allowing appeals to the Supreme Court within 90 days. It aims for disposal of cases within six months.
Exam Relevance Points
Prelims
Facts about NGT Act, establishment, and laws covered
Jurisdiction differences (NGT judicial, CPCB executive)
Location of NGT benches: New Delhi, Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata, Chennai
Mains
Link with Ganga rejuvenation (Namami Gange)
Tourism vs ecology debates
Federalism issues in environmental enforcement
Odisha parallels: riverbed constructions along Mahanadi; SPCB roles
Prelims Model Questions
1. The National Green Tribunal declared illegal the luxury tent cities in Varanasi for violation of which of the following laws?
(a) Forest Conservation Act 1980
(b) Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981
(c) Wildlife Protection Act 1972
(d) Biological Diversity Act 2002
Answer: (b)
2. Consider the following statements about NGT:
1. It was established under the Environment Protection Act 1986.
2. Its jurisdiction covers seven environmental laws.
3. Appeals lie before the Supreme Court.
Which statements are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b)
3. In the Varanasi Tent City case, NGT imposed environmental compensation of:
(a) Rs 1.71 crore
(b) Rs 17.12 lakh
(c) Rs 71.2 lakh
(d) Rs 12.17 lakh
Answer: (b)
4. Which principles guide NGT’s adjudication?
(a) Doctrine of Public Trust only
(b) Sustainable development, precautionary principle, polluter pays
(c) Absolute Liability only
(d) Pari passu
Answer: (b)
Mains Model Question & Answer
Q: Critically examine NGT’s role in balancing development and environment, citing the Varanasi Tent City case. (150 words)
NGT exemplifies specialized green adjudication, enforcing environmental laws through principles such as sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays. In the Varanasi Tent City case, it imposed compensation of Rs 17.12 lakh and declared the operations illegal for violating Water and Air Acts and river protection norms. Strengths include swift investigations through joint committees, preventionoriented orders such as banning future tent cities, and ensuring restitution for environmental damage. However, challenges persist—high case pendency, shortage of judicial and expert members, and uneven enforcement by state agencies. The case underscores the need for integrated riverzone planning, stronger statecentre coordination, and the use of technology for monitoring. Effective NGT interventions are essential for longterm schemes like Namami Gange.