The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has put a decisive stop to the Karnataka government's controversial proposal to divert a substantial sum of Rs 400 crore from the state's environmental watchdog. The funds, belonging to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), were earmarked for other state works, a move the green court has now stalled.
NGT Issues Notice, Halts Fund Transfer
In a significant order, the principal bench of the National Green Tribunal has issued a formal notice to the state of Karnataka, among others. The tribunal's action effectively freezes the government's plan to tap into the KSPCB's financial reserves. The order, dated 28 December 2025, was passed by the bench which also reproduced a part of a relevant report in its proceedings.
The move to access these funds was initiated by the state government, seeking to utilize the Rs 400 crore for various works not directly related to the pollution control board's core environmental mandate. The NGT's intervention underscores the legal principle that funds collected specifically for environmental protection and regulation should not be diverted for unrelated expenditures.
Implications for Environmental Governance
This decision by the NGT carries major implications for environmental governance in Karnataka. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is the primary agency responsible for enforcing environmental laws and standards. Its financial autonomy is crucial for funding critical activities like:
- Monitoring industrial pollution.
- Enforcing compliance with environmental norms.
- Running laboratories and technical studies.
- Undertaking conservation and remediation projects.
Diverting such a large sum—Rs 400 crore—could have severely hampered the board's operational capacity. The NGT's order ensures that these dedicated resources remain focused on safeguarding Karnataka's air, water, and land from pollution.
Legal Precedent and State Accountability
The tribunal's order to stall the fund transfer sets a strong legal precedent. It reinforces the accountability of state governments in preserving the financial integrity of statutory environmental bodies. By issuing notice and halting the move, the NGT has emphasized that funds generated through environmental compensation, consent fees, and grants are meant for a specific purpose and cannot be treated as a general revenue pool for the state exchequer.
The case, reported by Chiranjeevi Kulkarni, highlights the ongoing tension between developmental needs and environmental protection. The NGT's principal bench has taken a firm stand to ensure that environmental protection funds are ring-fenced. This ruling is likely to be closely watched by other states, preventing similar attempts to weaken pollution control mechanisms through financial diversion.
The next steps will involve the state government's formal response to the NGT's notice. The tribunal will further examine the legality and rationale behind the proposed fund transfer before making a final determination on the matter.
