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

2024 Supreme(SC) 301

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 With W.P.(C) No. 505 of 2020 And W.P.(C) No. 768 of 2013
Decided On : 14-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makkar, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. Mr. O.P. Badani, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. N. Ganapathy, Adv. Mr. K.V. Sreekumar, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., Adv. M/S. Aura & Co., Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv.
For the parties : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Ms. Adya Shree Datta, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Debadutta Kanungo, Adv. Mr. S. Hari Haran, Adv. Mr. Rajarajeshwaran S., Adv. Mr. Amaan Shreyas, Adv. Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR Mr. T.L.V. Ramachari, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, aDv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, aDv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. S.S. Reddy, Adv. Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omkar Kambi, Adv. Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Niroop Sukirthy V., Adv. Mr. Joy Nirupam, Adv. Mr. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Adv. Mr. Jatin Lalwani, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Nagayach, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ishan George, Adv. Mr. Archit Jain, Adv. Mrs. Dr. Rukma George, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Ms. Poornima Jauhari, Adv. Mr. Brij Bhushan Jauhari, Adv. Mr. K M Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rajeeva Ranjan Rajesh, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Ms. Baby Rajput, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv. M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. K. M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. T. S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Avirat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aarushi Yadav, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Eeshan D Khaire, Adv. M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv. M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omkar Kambi, Adv. Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Avirat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aarushi Yadav, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Garg, Adv. Mr. Kartikey, Adv. M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mrs. Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv. Ms. Anusha R, Adv. Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurthy, Adv. Mr. Shivamm Sharrma, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. S. N. Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar D. S., Adv. Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's intervention to address the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas, leading to the imposition of temporary bans on mining operations, categorization of mines, fixing of production ceilings, recommendation of R&R Plans, and constitution of oversight authorities and special purpose vehicles to oversee and facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures around the mining leases.

Headnote:

Mining Activities - Environmental Protection - T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka - Summary of Acts and Sections: T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. - CEC, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd - Temporary Ban on Mining Operations, Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka - Categorization of Mines, Production Ceilings, R&R Plans, Oversight Authority, National Mineral Development Corporation, SPV, CEPMIZ - The court discussed the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas. The court intervened and passed several directions and orders to monitor the situation, implement its orders, and delineate the steps to be taken. The court imposed temporary bans on mining operations, directed the categorization of mines, fixed production ceilings, recommended the implementation of R&R Plans, and constituted oversight authorities and special purpose vehicles to oversee and facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures around the mining leases.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2009, seeking the court's intervention on grounds of the illegality of mining activities and consequent harm caused to the environment. The court intervened and passed several directions and orders to address the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that large-scale illegal mining was being undertaken and imposed temporary bans on mining operations, directed the categorization of mines, fixed production ceilings, recommended the implementation of R&R Plans, and constituted oversight authorities and special purpose vehicles to oversee and facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures around the mining leases.

Issues: The issues involved the illegality of mining activities, environmental harm caused by unchecked intrusion into forest areas, and the need for ameliorative and mitigative measures to address the environmental degradation resulting from illegal mining.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to address the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas. The court's intervention led to the imposition of temporary bans on mining operations, categorization of mines, fixing of production ceilings, recommendation of R&R Plans, and constitution of oversight authorities and special purpose vehicles to oversee and facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures around the mining leases.

Final Decision: The court directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Karnataka to undertake a detailed scrutiny and survey of all Category C mines, where data and R&R Plans have not been submitted and submit R&R Plans after conducting their scrutiny and survey. The court also found it inappropriate to withdraw the 10% levy imposed by the court in terms of the order dated 13.04.2012, as the CEPMIZ Plan is still at the initial stage of execution.

ORDER :

1. The present applications relate to mining activities being undertaken in Districts - Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka.

2. In 2009, the petitioner - Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had filed a writ petition praying for this Court’s intervention on grounds of the illegality of such mining activities and consequent harm caused to the environment. This Court intervened and has passed several directions and orders.

3. To avoid prolixity, we will not be referring to the catena of orders passed by this Court in depth and detail. However, to appreciate the present applications, we have summarized the relevant developments below :

• The genesis of the Central Empowered Committee,1[For short, “CEC”.] goes back to this Court’s order dated 09.09.2002 in “T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.”, where the Court was concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas.

• The CEC was constituted to monitor the situation, implement this Courts’ orders, and delineate the steps to be taken.

• On 19.11.2010, the CEC was directed by this Court to submit a report with respect to certain mining leases granted by the State of Karnataka in District – Bellary.

• The initial reports of CEC indicated large-scale illegal mining being undertaken.

• On 06.05.2011, this Court constituted a ‘Joint Team’ to determine the boundaries of the specific mines since a large number of mining lessees were carrying out operations beyond the lease boundaries, thereby causing environmental degradation.

• On 29.07.2011, this Court imposed a temporary ban on mining operations in District – Bellary.,2[See State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, 2011 (12) SCC 491.]

• On 26.08.2011, this Court extended the temporary ban on mining operations to Districts – Chitradurga and Tumkur.,3[See Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 209.]

• On 05.08.2011 and 26.08.2011, this Court directed the Indian Council of Forest Research and Education,4[For short, “ICFRE”.] to conduct a macro-level environmental impact assessment, in collaboration with domain experts to determine the extent of environmental degradation due to illegal mining.

• On 14.08.2011, ICFRE submitted its report wherein it inter alia recommended: (i) imposition of district-level production ceiling; and (ii) preparation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans,5[For short, “R&R Plans”.] for each mining lease which apart from prescribing actions for reclamation and rehabilitation works would also prescribe a Maximum Permissible Annual Production,6[For short, “MPAP”.] restricting the total quantity of iron ore that could be produced at the specific mining lease.

• Based on ICFRE report and CEC’s recommendations, this Court imposed differing production ceilings on mining leases in the three districts, which have been enhanced from time to time:

o vide order dated 13.04.2012, production ceiling of 25 Million Metric Tons,7[For short, “MMT”.] was fixed on mines in the Bellary District and 5 MMT in Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts;

o these caps were enhanced to 28 MMT for the Bellary District and 7 MMT for Tumkar and Chitradurga Districts vide order dated 14.12.2017; and

o these caps were further enhanced to 35 MMT for Bellary District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar and Chitradurga Districts vide order dated 26.08.2022.

• Vide report dated 03.02.2012, the CEC recommended the categorization of the mines into Categories A, B and C based on the severity of encroachment by the mines and overburden dumps, determined in terms of the percentage in relation to the total lease area. In such categorization, Category A mining leases bear no/marginal illegality and Category C mining leases stand in flagrant violation of laws.

• To strike a balance between environmental protection and development, a central public sector unde

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