Over the last four decades, courts in India have developed a rich jurisprudence on environmental issues. The large body of environmental case-law reflects the judiciary’s predominant approach to environmental grievance redressal – directing regulatory institutions to take action against persistent violations and injustices,1 expanding the scope of environmental regulation,2 and recommending special environmental adjudicatory mechanisms to make environmental justice more accessible.3 However, apart from a few judgments,4 there has been less judicial attention, and resultant executive action, to strengthening existing structures and processes for effective redressal against administrative arbitrariness or inaction. In this paper, we focus on this often overlooked aspect of environmental grievance redressal, viz., the effectiveness of existing redressal forums. Such assessments of the National Green Tribunal [NGT] are already emerging.5 Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of a set of much older environmental redressal forums viz., the Appellate Authorities constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 [the Water Act] and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 [Air Act] on two broad dimensions: (1) ability to deliver good quality decisions and (2) accessibility. These authorities, as environmental grievance redressal mechanisms, pre-date environmental courts and ‘green benches’ in the higher judiciary and have jurisdiction over critical decisions in the pollution regulatory regime. They are appointed by the State Governments and the Administration of Union Territories [UT], with the primary function of deciding on appeals against orders issued by the State Pollution Control Board [SPCBs] or Pollution Control Committees [PCCs].6 While effective functioning of the Appellate Authorities is in itself an important part of environmental redressal, they can also positively impact access to broader environmental justice in the country in two ways. First, they offer a statutory grievance redressal mechanism to not just regulated entities, but also affected and/or concerned citizens at a decentralised level. Unlike the NGT which primarily functions from five cities, every state and UT is required to constitute an Appellate Authority. Second, Appellate Authorities, like the NGT, are adjudicatory forums outside the formal judiciary, and are free from its incumbent problems including enormous case backlog, timeconsuming procedures, and requirement of representation through a lawyer. If appropriately qualified persons are appointed to these authorities, they are well positioned to dispense effective and timely justice in pollution related cases. How effective are the existing Appellate Authorities in discharging their mandate, and are they conducive forums to facilitating effective environmental redressal? Although the statutory basis for these authorities has existed since 1974 (when the Water Act was enacted), there is no systematic study on their working across the country. This paper is an initial attempt to fill this gap in understanding how these authorities are currently functioning and also to highlight the potential role these authorities could play. Ideally, the effectiveness of such a forum would be judged by analysing the cases heard (and not heard), decisions delivered, time taken to decide appeals, and the extent of implementation of the decisions. However, across states, decisions of Appellate Authorities are currently not available in the public domain. So our analysis of their effectiveness is based upon factors known to affect effectiveness, starting with the simplest question of whether these authorities have been set up at all, who heads them, whether they comprise expert members, whether they are accessible in general, whether they recognise locus standi of all ‘aggrieved’ parties and the number and types of cases being heard.7 To obtain this information, we used a combination of internet-based research, data obtained through applications filed under the Right to Information Act 2005 [RTI Act] with all states, interviews with members of a few Appellate Authorities and one civil society petitioner.8 Finally, we present the case of the Karnataka State Appellate Authority in some detail, based on our personal observations and interviews with two former judges of the High Court of Karnataka, including the current chairperson of the Appellate Authority. We begin with an introduction to the role of the Appellate Authority based on its statutory mandate, as well as judicial orders, and a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of its structure. We then present the results of our analysis of empirical data on the existing Appellate Authorities in two stages: the broad findings based on information received under the RTI Act and more qualitative insights emerging from interviews and personal observations. We end with drawing some overarching inferences about the current state and future potential of these authorities in the country.