Baghjan oil well fire: Supreme Court 'disappointed' with NGT, stays order on panel to examine damages

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it is disappointed with the National Green Tribunal's order on setting up a 10-member committee, including an Oil India Ltd's Managing Director, to examine the damages caused by fire to the biodiversity at Assam's Baghjan oil well.

A bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah noted that the NGT included an Oil India official on the committee, despite holding the corporation responsible for losses.

"We are surprised that NGT first holds that Oil India responsible for the damages to the environment and for destroying the wetlands and then its officer is made a member of the committee to go into these issues," the bench said.

The court stayed the NGT's order on February 19 on an appeal filed by Bonani Kakkar, saying the tribunal "must have some alacrity and concerns for the environment".

The panel was tasked to assess damage to the environment and develop a remedial restoration plan, including Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, and the Maguri-Motapung Wetland.

Well 5 at Baghjan in Tinsukia district had caught fire on June 9, 2021, killing two of OIL's firefighters at the site.

Senior advocate Siddharth Mitra, representing petitioner Bonani Kakkar, contended it was a breach of the principal of justice, as somebody having a direct conflict of interest was asked to adjudicate the matter. He pointed out another committee led by former High Court judge B P Katakey has submitted a comprehensive report on the matter, which was followed by a progress report. Setting up new committees would eventually delay the entire process, he said.

The bench said it will constitute a new committee, which would examine all the issues and submit a report expeditiously.

"We may monitor this ourselves. We are disappointed by the manner in which the NGT has simply pushed this off its hands," the bench said.

On February 19, the NGT bench headed by Chairperson Justice A K Goel said it "prima facie" agreed that there was a failure on the part of the OIL in taking safety precautions.