‘Mission mode must’: NGT slams India’s ‘nagging’ waste crisis, demands total overhaul

A change in approach is need in realising that remedial action for waste management cannot wait for an indefinite period without accountability, the NGT said. (Image enhanced using AI)

Observations

• It is the mindset and determination to act in a mission mode which can produce results.
• It may be necessary to brainstorm with available experts and other stakeholders in the state at different levels, evolve models for both solid and sewage management which can be fast replicated.
• Initiate special campaigns with community/media involvement in the larger interest of protecting the environment and public health with determination for prompt action.
• Such brainstorming sessions may enable capacity enhancement of the regulators and the processors.
• Campaigns and community involvement may result in reducing the financial and administrative load on the administration.
• It would be better to replicate the efforts made in maintaining cleanliness including enhancing public contribution and utilizing sewage and solid waste management.
• Compliance of environmental norms on the subject of waste management has to be high on priority.
• It is high time that the state realises its duty to law and to citizens and adopts further monitoring at its own level.
• We have suggested a change in approach in realising that remedial action cannot wait for an indefinite period nor loose ended time lines without accountability can be a solution.
• The responsibility of the state is to have a comprehensive time bound plan with tied up resources to control pollution which is its absolute liability.
• If there is deficit in budgetary allocations, it is for the state alone to have suitable planning by reducing cost or augmenting resources.
• People must be involved in the problem by appropriate awareness and strategies to encourage public participation and contribution.
• At the cost of repetition, health issues cannot be deferred to the long future.
• Long future dates breach of which has taken place frequently in the past without accountability is not a convincing solution.
• It is a poor substitute for compliance within laid down timelines for the long past.
• This approach may project lack of concern or not realizing the grim ground situation crying for emergent remedial measures on priority.
• There is no time for leisure, reflected in timelines proposed for bridging the acknowledged gaps.
• The first change required is to set up a centralized single window mechanism for planning, capacity building and monitoring of waste management at the state level.
• Of course, local authorities have to do their duty and stocktaking at the district levels may continue but subject to supervision and control of such mechanisms.
• It should be headed by an officer of the rank of additional chief secretary with representation from concerned departments- urban development, rural development, environment and forest, agriculture, water resources, fisheries and industries.
• The mechanism should be working on fulltime basis.
• There must be a continuous training programme for those involved in execution of waste management projects.
• It should be responsible for selecting service providers and simplifying procedures for fixing terms of engagement.
• Best practices are to be evolved and followed.

Background

The review application was filed by the corporation seeking reconsideration of an earlier NGT order dated November 4, 2025.

The order was passed in a matter which dealt with persistent non-compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and sewage treatment norms in Rajasthan.

The issue raised in the original case was compliance of the SWM rules and the Liquid Management Rules and to ensure that no untreated water is discharged in the water bodies or open land and no garbage should be thrown into the open area or the water bodies and there must be proper provisions of disposal of these items.

What Ajmer Municipal Corporation argued

• The corporation approached the tribunal seeking a review of the earlier directions, arguing that the order required reconsideration.
• While detailed grounds were raised, the tribunal examined whether the application disclosed any legally permissible basis for review, such as discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record.
• The bench emphasised that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue issues already considered.
• If an authority is aggrieved by an order, the proper remedy is to challenge it before a higher forum, not to seek repeated reconsideration before the same court.