A landmark 2021 judgment by the Supreme Court was unequivocal: the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is not a mere adjudicatory body but a “specialized” protector tasked with fostering environmental justice and equity. Affirming the NGT’s powers, the apex court underlined that these were the pivotal threads weaved into the Tribunal’s very fabric to safeguard public interest against ecological degradation.An investigation by The Indian Express of over 100,000 NGT orders since 2020 reveals a deepening asymmetry.In matters of environmental and forest clearances (EC/FC), the Tribunal has ruled in favour of project developers in four out of every five cases — either by upholding a contested clearance or staying its denial.Also Read | NGT clears Rs 80,000-crore Great Nicobar project, cites ‘strategic’ role, no ‘good ground’ to interfereBetween 2020 and 2025 (see chart), of the 329 appeals filed by citizens and activists against the grant of clearances by the Government, only in 20% (65 cases), did the NGT rule in favour of the appeal. Conversely, when the project’s proponents appealed against the denial of clearances by the government, in nearly 80% (126 of 160) of the cases, they secured relief.This is not a historical norm. Data from 2016-2019 shows a more balanced era where relief for both sides hovered between 18% and 31%.This pro-project trend has accelerated sharply in the last 24 months. Between 2024 and 2025, only 7% of appeals challenging clearances were successful. In contrast, 88% of industry-led appeals against clearance rejections got relief.Story continues below this adGiving context to these numbers is the NGT’s gatekeeping role.Also Read | SC ruling on post-facto clearances sets environmental law back by decadesEstablished under the NGT Act, 2010, the Tribunal serves as the primary appellate authority for any person “aggrieved” by an order from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or State authorities.The NGT has the mandate to adjudicate all civil cases involving substantial questions related to the environment.The bulk of the cases heard by the tribunal’s five benches in Delhi (Principal), Bhopal (Central), Pune (Western), Kolkata (Eastern) and Chennai (Southern) are related to air and water pollution and coastal zone regulations.Story continues below this adMore importantly, the tribunal’s key appellate jurisdiction covers all government orders, including project clearances, issued under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986 and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980.While the Supreme Court envisioned the NGT as a guardian, critics argue the outcome and the process both have become trying for public grievances.“Too many appeals are getting time-barred and not judged on merit,” says Deb Goenka, founder of the Mumbai-based Conservation Action Trust. He points out that while industry giants have legal departments to track filings, victims from economically weaker sections often miss the 90-day appeal deadline because clearances are rarely publicized in accessible formats.Also Read | To tap India’s clean energy potential, a to-do listIndeed, of the 264 unsuccessful citizen appeals during 2020–2025, a significant portion was dismissed on technical grounds, labelled “time-barred” for more than 90 days delay in filing. The rest were dismissed as “not tenable,” or lacking “any merit.”Story continues below this adAsked if this shift is inspired by the government’s policy of ease of doing business, a senior Environment ministry official said: “Not too much should be read in these numbers as quality of cases determines outcomes. Besides, project proponents have the same right as project-affected (people).”EAS Sarma, retired IAS officer and social activist, also cautioned against analysing NGT orders entirely on the basis of for-and-against metrics. “The outcome of an appeal depends on the documentary evidence produced and the strength of the arguments put forward,” he pointed out.Environmental lawyer Ritwik Dutta underlined how getting turned down by the NGT marks the end of the road for many. “Adverse NGT rulings can be challenged at the High Court and Supreme Court. But not many, even if they have the wherewithal, take that route as the prospect of prolonged litigation is a strong deterrence.”During 2020-2025, the tribunal decided on 329 appeals against environmental or forest clearances (EC/FCs) granted to various projects and another 159 appeals that challenged the rejection or cancellation of EC/FCs.Story continues below this adAlso Read | As NGT clears Great Nicobar project, a look at its strategic importance and ecological falloutOf the 329 appeals against clearances, 264 did not get any relief.Projects where the NGT did not give any relief to those who challenged clearances granted to companies include those by Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port; Vedanta, Jindal Power; Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd; Honnavar Port Pvt Ltd; Oil India; NHAI; NBCC; Alang shipyard, Ultratech Cement, Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Limited (NLCIL); major mines such as Singrauli, Dipka, Parsa East-Kanta Basan; and power plants such as Khurja super thermal and the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydel project.Among the 65 cases that got relief included appeals against mining close to Taj Mahal; a Bangalore housing project of Godrej Properties; a Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) project in Karnataka; marble mines near Rajasthan’s Bandh-Baretha sanctuary; and a greenfield captive jetty project near Orissa’s Paradeep Port etc.Of the 159 appeals against rejection or cancellation of EC/FC or penalties, only 33 were unsuccessful. The remaining 126 got relief from the NGT benches that set aside adverse government orders and called for re-evaluation.Story continues below this adAmong the successful challengers of clearance rejection were NTPC Ltd Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project, STP Limited, Indotech Waste Solution and a range of companies engaged in mining and quarrying.