Supreme Court Clarifies Mining Ban in Eco-Sensitive Zones: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (28 April 2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the extent of mining restrictions in Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) around protected areas. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law. Case Name: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India. [Judgment Date]: 28 April 2023

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: (Not provided in the document)
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Vikram Nath, J.
Can mining be allowed in an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) if it is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of a protected area? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question to clarify its earlier judgment. This case clarifies that mining is prohibited within an ESZ, regardless of the distance from the protected area’s boundary. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The applicant, M/s. Puntambekar Minerals, had received permission to execute a mining lease in 2005, pending clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) and the National Board for Wild Life. The applicant’s proposed mining site was located more than 2.26 kilometers from the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary’s boundary. The applicant argued that since the mining site was beyond one kilometer from the protected area, it should be permitted, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26th April 2023. The applicant also argued that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life had granted permission.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The applicant sought clarification on whether mining was permissible beyond one kilometer from a protected area’s boundary, even if within an ESZ. The applicant relied on a previous judgment of the Supreme Court to argue that mining was permissible beyond one kilometer. The Union of India and the Amicus Curiae opposed this, stating that the applicant had misinterpreted the court’s directions.

Legal Framework

The court referred to its judgment dated 26th April 2023, which modified earlier directions and stated:

“mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wild Life Sanctuary shall not be permissible.”

The court also referred to its direction that the MoEF and all State/Union Territory Governments must strictly follow the guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and the ESZ notifications regarding prohibited, regulated, and permissible activities.

The court noted that the 2011 guidelines prohibit commercial mining. The court also referred to the notification dated 15th October 2020, regarding the ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary, which prohibits all new and existing mining activities, except for meeting the domestic needs of local residents. The notification also mentions that mining operations should be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India.

The court clarified that its judgment dated 26th April 2023, is the final word on the issue and the notification dated 15th October 2020, is now redundant to the extent it is inconsistent with the judgment.

Arguments

Applicant’s Arguments:

• The applicant argued that the proposed mining site was beyond 2.26 kilometers from the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary, thus beyond the one-kilometer ban.
• The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 26th April 2023, stating that mining is prohibited only within one kilometer of a protected area.
• The applicant submitted that the judgment does not prohibit mining in ESZs beyond the one-kilometer limit.
• The applicant stated that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life had granted permission for the mining activity.

Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India and Amicus Curiae):

• The respondents argued that the applicant misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s directions.
• They contended that the ban on mining extends to all ESZs, regardless of the distance from the protected area.
• They emphasized that the 2011 guidelines and ESZ notifications prohibit commercial mining.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the court was whether mining is permissible in an ESZ if the area is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of a protected area.

The sub-issue was whether the notification dated 15th October 2020, was still valid in light of the judgment dated 26th April 2023.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 740 – Supreme Court of India.
• Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 – Supreme Court of India.

Legal Provisions:

• Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 issued by the MoEF.
• Notification dated 15th October 2020 regarding the ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court referred to the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 740 and Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 as mentioned in the notification, but clarified that the judgment dated 26th April 2023 is the final word on the issue.
• The court held that the Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 must be strictly followed, which prohibits commercial mining in ESZs.
• The court clarified that the Notification dated 15th October 2020 is redundant to the extent it is inconsistent with the judgment dated 26th April 2023.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was to protect National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries from the detrimental effects of mining. The court emphasized that mining activities within ESZs pose a significant threat to the flora and fauna in these regions. The court clarified that the one-kilometer rule was intended to provide a minimum buffer zone, and it does not override the broader prohibition of mining within ESZs.

The court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure that environmental regulations are strictly followed. The court emphasized that both the 2011 guidelines and the ESZ notifications prohibit commercial mining. The court also noted that its judgment dated 26th April 2023, is delivered by a three-judge bench, which is binding.

The court clarified that the prohibition of one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area applies only when the ESZ boundary is less than one kilometer. In such cases, the ban on mining will extend beyond the ESZ area up to a distance of one kilometer. The court stated:

“We clarify that even if in a particular case, the ESZ is more than one kilometer, still, if the concerned area where mining is proposed falls within the ESZ, the mining activity will not be permitted, even if it falls in an area which is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area.”

The court emphasized that the guidelines and ESZ notifications must be strictly followed. The court stated:

“As such, our directions are very much clear. Whatever is prohibited under the 2011 guidelines and whatever is additionally prohibited under the specific ESZ notifications of the particular Protected Areas have to be strictly followed.”

The court also stated:

“Since the mining activity in ESZ area is a prohibited activity, there is no question of such an activity being permitted in an ESZ area even if it falls beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area.”

The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Mining is prohibited within Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), regardless of the distance from the boundary of a protected area.
• The one-kilometer rule applies only when the ESZ boundary is less than one kilometer from the protected area.
• The 2011 guidelines and ESZ notifications must be strictly followed.
• Commercial mining is prohibited in ESZs.
• The judgment dated 26th April 2023, is the final word on the issue.

Directions

The court did not issue any specific directions, but clarified the position of law regarding mining in ESZs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that mining is prohibited within Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), regardless of the distance from the boundary of a protected area. This clarifies the previous position of law by emphasizing that the one-kilometer rule is a minimum buffer zone and does not override the broader prohibition of mining within ESZs. The judgment clarifies that the prohibition of mining in ESZs is absolute, regardless of the distance from the protected area’s boundary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that mining is prohibited within Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), regardless of the distance from the boundary of a protected area. The court emphasized that the one-kilometer rule applies only when the ESZ boundary is less than one kilometer from the protected area. The court’s decision reinforces the protection of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries by ensuring that environmental regulations are strictly followed.