Back
Supreme Court Bans Construction Within 100 Metres of Jojari River Pending Scientific Flood Line Determination
The has imposed an on all construction and development activities within 100 metres of the edge of Rajasthan’s Jojari River, while also barring any hazardous or polluting industries within a 500-metre zone on either side. The direction, passed by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on , comes in the ongoing proceedings concerning the severe ecological degradation and industrial pollution of the Jojari, Bandi, and Luni river systems. The restrictions will remain in force until the scientific determination and demarcation of the and requisite are completed.
Background: A River in Crisis
The case originated from a documentary titled “2 Million Lives at Risk | India’s Deadliest River | Jojari, Rajasthan,” which exposed rampant contamination from untreated industrial effluents discharged by textile and steel units across Jodhpur, Pali, Balotra, and adjoining districts. In , the Supreme Court took cognizance and revived the ’s ( ) clean-up directions, which had mandated compliance, , and closure of defaulting industries. The ’s final order dated , was challenged by , municipal councils, and others through under Section 22 of the Act, with granted in . The Apex Court, noting that hundreds of villages were affected and drinking water rendered non-potable, constituted a headed by former judge Justice Sangeet Lodha to oversee restoration. Subsequently, an was formed to coordinate inter-departmental efforts, and the State was directed to create an independent or .
The Interim Protective Zone
While the scientific exercise to determine the and is pending, the Court found it imperative to impose an immediate, measurable protective area. “In view of serious ecological degradation, it is necessary to put in place an interim measurable area of protection to adequately safeguard the river ecosystem during the pendency of the scientific exercise for determination and demarcation of the and the requisite ,” the Bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court directed that “no construction or development activity of any nature shall be permitted within 100 metres from the edge of the river.” As an additional interim safeguard, “no industry or activity having the potential to cause pollution, contamination or other damage to the river ecosystem shall be permitted within 500 metres on either side of the existing flood line wherever such flood line has been identified.” Where the flood line has not been identified, the 500-metre restriction applies on either side of the present flow path of the river. These directions will remain effective until the scientific demarcation is completed.
Resolving Overlapping Mandates
The Court also addressed practical difficulties arising from the substantial overlap in membership between the and the . Several senior government functionaries served on both bodies, raising concerns about independence and effectiveness. The Court clarified that the Coordination Group is merely an internal government arrangement for smooth coordination between departments and does not impinge upon the Committee’s domain. To ensure clarity, the Bench empowered the Committee’s Chairperson, in his individual capacity, to issue suitable directions, orders, and instructions for effective and expeditious coordinated implementation. The earlier directions empowering the Committee to take necessary action would continue to operate in letter and spirit.
Legal Implications and Analysis
This interim order underscores the Supreme Court’s proactive use of its to protect fragile river ecosystems pending detailed scientific assessment. By imposing an immediate ban on construction and hazardous activities, the Court has effectively applied the , shifting the burden onto the State and industries to demonstrate that their activities do not cause further harm. The 100-metre and 500-metre buffers serve as clear, enforceable limits that can be monitored by local authorities, reducing ambiguity that often plagues environmental compliance.
The order also highlights the judiciary’s willingness to supervise executive action, particularly when fragmented departmental responses have failed to curb industrial pollution. The clarification on the Committee and Coordination Group’s roles ensures that the restoration process does not become bogged down by bureaucratic overlap. For legal practitioners, this case reaffirms the Supreme Court’s broad powers to fashion interim relief in environmental matters, even before a final scientific determination is made. It also signals that industries operating near riverbeds may face heightened scrutiny and potential closure if they fail to comply with future buffer zone regulations.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
The decision will have immediate ramifications for real estate developers, industrial units, and municipal authorities in districts along the Jojari River. Any ongoing or planned construction within 100 metres of the river’s edge must be halted. Industries that discharge effluents or engage in hazardous processes within 500 metres must cease operations or face . This judgment builds on the trend set by the and the Supreme Court in previous environmental cases, such as the Ganga pollution matters, where interim buffer zones were imposed.
For lawyers, the case provides a template for arguing that are permissible pending comprehensive scientific studies. It also illustrates how the Supreme Court can manage complex multi-party environmental litigation by constituting expert committees and coordination groups. The next hearing is scheduled for , when the Court will review progress on the flood line determination and the committee’s work.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Jojari River is a decisive step towards safeguarding one of Rajasthan’s most polluted waterways. By banning construction within 100 metres and restricting hazardous activities within 500 metres pending scientific study, the Court has balanced ecological preservation with the need for evidence-based regulation. The case continues to serve as a critical example of judicial intervention in environmental governance, with significant implications for river restoration efforts across India.
