Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India

Facts

• The case arose within the continuing body of litigation connected to the Bhopal gas tragedy and its aftermath
• Questions arose regarding the appropriate institutional forum and the relationship between the newly established National Green Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction and the High Courts' pre-existing constitutional writ jurisdiction
• The specific question concerned whether High Courts retained residual writ jurisdiction over matters the NGT Act's Section 22 appellate structure otherwise routes directly to the Supreme Court

Issue

1. How the NGT's specialised statutory jurisdiction interacts with the High Courts' constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, given the NGT Act's specific appellate structure.

Held

• The Court addressed the tension between the NGT Act's specific statutory appellate route (direct to the Supreme Court) and the High Courts' constitutional writ jurisdiction, which ordinary legislation cannot straightforwardly extinguish
• The reasoning contributed to working through where each jurisdiction properly operates, seeking to avoid both undermining the NGT's specialised function and improperly displacing the High Courts' constitutional role

Ratio Decidendi

The National Green Tribunal's specialised statutory jurisdiction and the High Courts' constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 must be reconciled through careful institutional analysis, since ordinary legislation cannot wholly extinguish constitutional writ jurisdiction, while unrestricted parallel exercise of both risks undermining the consistency the NGT Act's direct Supreme Court appellate route was designed to achieve.