Supreme Court Art of Living Verdict: 18 Irregularities Cited In NGT Proceedings Hearings Chaired By Justice Swatanter Kumar

The Supreme Court’s judgment dated August 22, 2026, setting aside the National Green Tribunal’s judgment in the Art of Living’s World Culture Festival case brought renewed attention to the proceedings that followed the March 11-13, 2016 event.

The proceedings before the NGT, chaired by then Chairman Justice Swatanter Kumar, concerned allegations of environmental damage to the Yamuna floodplains arising from the World Culture Festival. The proceedings resulted in a series of orders, Committee reports and findings concerning the alleged damage, its quantification and the remedial measures to be undertaken. The NGT had held Vyakti Vikas Kendra India, associated with the Art of Living Foundation, liable for environmental damage to the Yamuna floodplains and ordered ₹5 crore environmental compensation.

However, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the NGT’s order, found that the evidence on record did not establish a direct causal connection between the event and the alleged environmental damage and directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the ₹5 crore compensation deposited by the appellants.

Following the Supreme Court judgment, it is relevant to revisit the manner in which the proceedings before the NGT unfolded. The following 18 points set out the irregularities that, according to Art of Living, marked those proceedings:

1. Though the matter commenced on 8th February 2016, it was dragged till the last date and an interim order was passed imposing a deposit of Rs. 5 crores as late as 9th March 2016, only 2 days prior to the event. This left Art of Living (AOL) without sufficient time to challenge the order prior to the event.

2. The proceeding commenced on 8th February 2016. An interim report was submitted on 21st February 2016 by a Committee constituted by this Tribunal. But, objections were not allowed against this report and even a copy of the report was given only after 9 days.

3. The NGT-appointed Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by quantifying damage of Rs. 120 crore after a very short cursory visual inspection. This finding of the Committee was publicized throughout the world and an impression was created that AOL was holding an event by causing damage to the tune of Rs. 120 crores to the Yamuna floodplains.

4. On 1st March 2016, the Chairman of the Committee wrote a letter to the Chairperson of this Tribunal stating that he did not agree with the quantification. The letter said that the quantification was not based on any scientific investigation. This letter was endorsed to be put on the judicial file. However, this important and material piece of information/admission by the Chairman of the Committee was not disclosed to AOL.

5. When an application was made by AOL for substituting the deposit of money with a bank guarantee (which is an acceptable mode of payment even in matters involving monetary claims), the Chairperson rejected the request and closed arguments on 31st March 2016 and delivered a judgment on 31st May 2016 and blamed AOL for the delay.

6. While passing the order of 31st May 2016 in M.A. No. 311 of 2016 filed by AOL, the Chairperson did not even consider the relief claimed by AOL that there should be a scientific investigation into the matter with regard to the assessment of damage, nor was there a direction to conduct a scientific investigation, making it impossible for AOL to collect samples, on the basis of which, the Committee’s findings could have been challenged in a better manner.

7. One of the members of the Committee gave a public interview where he publicly alleged that AOL had caused damage to the tune of Rs. 120 crores. This interview was given even before the investigation by the Committee began. Even though this was pointed out to the NGT, no action was taken by it.

8. After its investigation was complete, the Committee openly expressed its reluctance and inability to quantify the damage. Despite this, the NGT Chairperson forced the Committee to do so.

9. Though the second report of the Committee is dated 28th November 2016 and the matter was listed at regular intervals from November 2016 to April 2017, a copy of the second report dated 28th November 2016 was not furnished to AOL until April 2017 and after that only one week was given to file objections.

10. When the hearing of objections to reports dated 28th July 2016 and 28th November 2016 were in progress, suddenly the arguments of the Counsel for AOL were interrupted and an order dated 21st July 2017 was passed by which another committee was constituted to give an action plan for implementation of the reports under challenge. This shows that the NGT Chairperson had already prejudged the issue even before the hearing of the objections was concluded.

11. When the report of this new Committee turned out to be in favour of AOL, giving AOL a complete clean chit, the NGT Chairperson completely disregarded this report.

12. This New Committee has placed photographs on record to show that the event site is in good condition and that there is no damage to it. This evidence was completely disregarded by the NGT.

13. The entire case against AOL was built on the basis that the World Culture Festival event was conducted on a fragile wetland. This is factually and legally incorrect. AOL produced over 50 undisputed satellite images to show that the event site was only a flood plain and never a wetland. All these satellite images were disregarded by the NGT. No one (neither the Petitioner nor any of the Government agencies nor the NGT appointed Committee) has disputed these satellite images produced by AOL.

On the other hand, the entire case of the NGT-appointed Committee that the event was conducted on a wetland is based on one single satellite image of early September. On the date of this satellite image, there was a deluge in Delhi with incessant rains over several days. Rainfall figures were placed before the NGT to show this fact. It is obvious that a satellite image taken during heavy rains will give a misleading and, in fact, incorrect picture of the state of affairs at site.

14. Admittedly, the event was conducted on less than 25 hectares of land. However, the Committee appointed by the NGT assessed an area of 170 hectares and fastened the responsibility of rehabilitating this entire area on AOL. It was no one’s case that AOL used even an inch more than the area of less than 25 hectares allotted to it.

15. The Committee in its reports has clearly admitted that it did not know the condition of the event site before the event. In these circumstances, making any assessment was merely speculative conjecture.

16. Inexplicably, the composition of the bench which had heard the arguments of AOL was changed. One of the members who had heard the arguments fully was removed from the Bench. Later, this member was added back to the Bench. Interestingly, this member, who was removed and added back, has recused himself and has not signed the final judgment.

17. Another member, who had not heard the arguments of the Counsel for AOL, was added to the Bench without the consent of AOL. This new member has signed the final judgment without even hearing the AOL Counsel.

18. When AOL objected to the reconstitution of the Bench and sought an adjournment on this ground by a letter dated 7th November 2017 (which is the usual practice of this Tribunal), the NGT Chairperson reconstituted the old Bench through video conferencing. In the cause list dated 13th November 2017, the matter was shown to be listed before the original Bench which had heard the arguments of AOL.

However, at the time of the hearing (12:30 pm), the new member was also included in the Bench combination. In the circumstances, AOL’s Counsel sought a fresh hearing in the matter before the new Bench, which was refused by the Chairperson, and an ultimatum was given to AOL to recapitulate the arguments in 15 minutes.

Taken together, these 18 points concern not merely the final assessment of environmental damage, but also the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, the material made available to Art of Living, the scientific basis for the assessment, the treatment of the Committee reports and the subsequent changes in the composition of the Bench.

After a decade, the Art of Living's concluding assertion is simple: Satyameva Jayate - the truth always triumphs.