“No Mining”: Supreme Court Takes Firm Stand on Saranda Forest Sanctuary Declaration

New Delhi – In a significant assertion of judicial oversight in environmental matters, the Supreme Court of India has emphatically stated its refusal to permit any mining activities within the proposed Saranda/Sasangdaburu forest sanctuary in Jharkhand. The bench, comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, delivered a clear and uncompromising message to both the State of Jharkhand and the Union government, prioritizing ecological preservation over commercial mining interests, including those of the state-owned Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL).

The court's stern observations came during a hearing in the seminal and long-running case, In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors , a public interest litigation that has been instrumental in shaping India's forest jurisprudence for nearly three decades. At the heart of the current proceedings is the State of Jharkhand's protracted delay and perceived reluctance to finalize the declaration of the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve, despite previous assurances to the Court.

Background: A History of Non-Compliance and Judicial Impatience

The issue of declaring the Saranda forest a protected area is not new. The Court has repeatedly directed the State of Jharkhand to act on its commitments. The judicial patience appeared to wear thin, as evidenced by a prior order where the bench warned that the Chief Secretary of the State would face contempt of court proceedings if compliance was not demonstrated by the next hearing.

This judicial pressure led to the state government, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, presenting a draft notification for the sanctuary. However, this draft came with a significant caveat: an exemption for approximately six acres of land occupied by villagers. While seemingly a move to protect tribal rights, this proposal immediately raised red flags for the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar.

Parameshwar expressed grave concerns about the state's lack of transparency, particularly regarding the existence of mining "compartments" within the area proposed for exemption. He argued that the state's true motive was not the welfare of the villagers but the protection of mining interests. His submissions pointed to the risk of creating a loophole that would undermine the very purpose of the sanctuary. He strongly advocated for a thorough assessment by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) before the notification could be finalized, to ensure the integrity of the proposed protected area.

A Decisive Judicial Intervention Against Mining

The hearing took a decisive turn when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for SAIL, intervened to protect the company's interests. He informed the Court that while SAIL holds mining leases in the region, these mines are not yet operational. He pleaded for the Court to exempt these non-operational mines from the proposed sanctuary's ambit.

CJI Gavai's response was swift and unequivocal. "No, no, we will not permit anything, no mining activities within those 126 compartments," the Chief Justice interjected, leaving no room for negotiation.

The Solicitor General pressed the point, emphasizing that SAIL possessed valid mining leases for a 30-year period. This argument, however, failed to sway the bench. In a statement that powerfully articulates the principle of equality before the law and the primacy of environmental regulations, the CJI retorted, "You may have anything, the law cannot be different for the Union of India and for other mining agents."

This exchange is legally significant as it signals the judiciary's view that statutory environmental protections, once enacted, can and will override pre-existing contractual or leasehold rights, regardless of whether the leaseholder is a private entity or a public-sector undertaking.

Unveiling the Extent of Mining Interests

The amicus curiae further substantiated his concerns by referring to a counter-affidavit filed by the State itself, which acknowledged the existence of 126 mining compartments within the forest. While the affidavit claimed no "ancillary mining activities" were currently underway, Parameshwar highlighted that at least five to six of these compartments fall directly within the core forest area. He reiterated the fundamental legal principle that once an area is declared a reserved forest or wildlife sanctuary, no mining activities can be permitted within it under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The environmental stakes were further underscored by counsel for an intervenor, who painted a grim picture of the ecological degradation already occurring. The counsel described how the Koena River and its tributaries, vital water sources flowing near the forest, are being polluted by "toxic orange water" runoff from surrounding mining compartments, a clear indicator of the severe environmental impact of mining operations in the region.

Mr. Sibal, for Jharkhand, attempted to counter these arguments by suggesting the amicus was relying on outdated 1968 notifications and that circumstances had changed. He maintained that no mining was currently active within the 24,000 square meters of the proposed sanctuary and that the state had no objection to an independent inspection by the CEC.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The Supreme Court's verbal directives in this hearing carry profound implications for environmental and mining law in India.

• Primacy of the Precautionary Principle: The Court's refusal to even consider exempting non-operational mines reflects a strong application of the precautionary principle. It is unwilling to allow the possibility of future environmental damage in an area deemed ecologically critical.
• Judicial Enforcement Against Executive Delay: The case is a classic example of the judiciary stepping in to enforce environmental mandates when the executive branch is perceived as being deliberately slow or acting in favour of commercial interests. The threat of contempt has proven to be a powerful tool to ensure compliance.
• Sanctity of Protected Areas: The bench's hard-line stance reinforces the legal sanctity of wildlife sanctuaries and reserved forests. It sends a clear message to all stakeholders that once an area is earmarked for conservation, commercial and industrial activities will not be tolerated.
• Scrutiny of State Motives: The Court has given significant weight to the amicus curiae's submissions questioning the state's motives. This indicates a judicial willingness to look beyond the stated reasons for government actions and examine the potential for regulatory capture by vested interests.

The bench, which also heard brief submissions regarding the rights of scheduled tribes dwelling in the forest, has deferred the matter to the coming week for further hearing. The legal community will be watching closely to see how the Court balances the imperative of conservation with the rights of forest-dwelling communities and the finality of existing mining leases. The final shape of the notification and the Court's formal order will set a critical precedent for the future of conservation efforts in mineral-rich, ecologically fragile regions across the country.