SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 853

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., HIMA KOHLI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 10973 of 2018, 72931, 83141 of 2017, 218 of 2014, W.P. (Civil) No. 562 of 2009
Decided On : 26-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sahil Mitra, Adv. Ms. Neha Sagwan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Madhvi Dewan, ASG Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG, Karnataka Mr. Omkar Kambi, Adv. Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Ms. Seema Patnaik, Adv. Mr. Sujit, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vaibhar Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vinay S. Pandit, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG Mr. Vishal Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Niroop Sukrithy, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. Sahanjay Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sourav Jindal, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. S. Ashok Reddy, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sweta S. Ratam, Adv. Mr. S.D. Reddy, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Yashoda Katiyar, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Akansha Rai, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhai, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv. Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mr. T.G.N.Nair, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Shailesh Modiyal, Adv. Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. RR Rajush, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh k. Singh, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. TS Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Upamanyu Hazarika, Sr. Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Ms. Mansi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Swain, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Swain, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shiv Kumar Vats, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Singh, Adv. PlR Chambers & CO., AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Mr. G. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.

The judgment establishes the principle of balancing economic development with environmental conservation and intergenerational equity in the context of natural resource extraction.

Headnote:

Iron Ore Mining - Ceiling Limit - Karnataka State - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 4(1) - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - Intergenerational Equity - Sustainable Development

Fact of the Case:

The court considered the issue of lifting the ceiling limit for production of iron ore in certain districts of Karnataka. The original petitioner objected to lifting the ceiling limit, citing concerns about unsustainable mining and intergenerational equity. The respondents argued that the situation had changed, and the ceiling limits were unfairly penalizing compliant mining lease holders.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the progress made in addressing illegal mining activities and environmental concerns in Karnataka. It balanced the concerns of over excavation and intergenerational equity against the need for economic development. The court decided to raise the ceiling limit for iron ore mining, taking a cautious approach to ensure a gradual change in the mining activity.

Issues: The main issue was whether to lift the ceiling limit for iron ore production in Karnataka, considering the changed circumstances and competing concerns of sustainable development and environmental conservation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the need to balance economic development with environmental conservation and intergenerational equity. It considered the recommendations of the oversight authority and the stakeholders, ultimately deciding to raise the ceiling limit for iron ore mining in a cautious manner.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the applications, allowing a cautious increase in the ceiling limit for iron ore mining in the specified districts of Karnataka.

ORDER :

1. The present hearing is in continuation of our earlier hearing and order dated 20.05.2022, whereby this Court had considered and granted certain reliefs relating to the sale and export of iron ore in the Districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in the State of Karnataka. In the said order, we had specifically left open the question of the lifting/relaxation of the ceiling limit for production of iron ore in the abovementioned Districts and had sought an opinion from the Oversight Authority appointed by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022. The observations made by this Court were as follows:

“22......For the present, we propose to confine the scope of this order to examining the twin prayers made by learned counsel for the applicants namely, permission to sell the unsold stock of iron ore already excavated without resorting to the process of e-auction conducted through the Monitoring Committee and for lifting the ban on export of iron ore/pellets from the districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur situated in the State of Karnataka. Although certain submissions were made by the parties regarding lifting of the ceiling limit for total production of iron ore, at this juncture we are not inclined to decide the said issue.

32. With respect to the submissions of the parties in relation to the lifting of the ceiling limit for production of iron ore for mining leases in the Districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, we are of the considered opinion that it would be expedient to obtain an opinion from the Oversight Authority appointed by this Court vide order dated 21st April, 2022 about the same before deciding the said issue. We request the Oversight Authority to take inputs from the stakeholders, including the CEC and the Monitoring Committee, and to send his opinion to this Court preferably within a period of 4 weeks.”

2. On the last date of hearing, this Court took on record the Report filed by the learned Oversight Authority and had directed that copies of the same be made available to the parties whereafter, the matter was posted for considering the issue of lifting of ceiling limit.

3. Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, South.

4. Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ceiling limits were imposed in view of the earlier CEC recommendation and the report of the learned Lokayukta, which suggested that the rate of mining of iron ore in the State of Karnataka was unsustainable and would result in exhaustion of the iron ore deposits in the State of Karnataka within 30 years. This as per the learned counsel would seriously impact the goal of intergenerational equity. Lastly, he submitted that as the learned Oversight Authority has sought additional information regarding the infrastructural capacity before giving an opinion as to the viability of lifting of the ceiling limit, this Court should presently refrain from passing any orders at this juncture.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate submitted that the present regime relating to iron ore mining in the State of Karnataka, with Court imposed ceiling limits, has been in existence for over a decade. When the ceiling limit was first imposed, the Court was confronted with a vastly different situation, where there was rampant illegal mining activity taking place in the State of Karnataka. The said situation has now been remedied through series of orders passed by this Court. As a result, all illegal mining in the area has been halted and several ameliorative measures have been taken for the improvement of the environment and ecology of the region. In such circumstances, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the present mining lease holders, who are complying with all the laws, are being unfairly penalized for the illegalities that were committed a decade ago. Such ceiling limits has


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top