Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 442
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can mining activities be permitted in an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) if it is beyond one kilometer from a protected area? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying its earlier judgment regarding mining restrictions near national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. This clarification was prompted by an application seeking permission for mining activities beyond one kilometer from a protected area, but within the notified ESZ. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of environmental protection and adherence to established guidelines.

Case Background

The applicant, M/s. Puntambekar Minerals, sought permission to execute a mining lease that was initially granted in 2005. This permission was contingent upon 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, leading them to believe it was permissible under the Supreme Court’s previous orders.

Timeline

Date Event
2005 Mining lease granted to M/s. Puntambekar Minerals, subject to clearances.
15th October 2020 Final notification for the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Radhanagari Sanctuary was issued.
26th April 2023 Supreme Court issues a judgment regarding mining restrictions in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022.
28th April 2023 Supreme Court issues a clarification on mining restrictions in ESZ.

Course of Proceedings

The applicant, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 26th April 2023, argued that since their proposed mining activity was beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area, it should be permitted. However, the Union of India and the Amicus Curiae opposed this view, stating that the applicant had misinterpreted the Court’s directions. The Court considered the arguments and clarified its previous order to prevent further environmental damage.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several key legal provisions and guidelines:

  • The Court referred to paragraph 65 of its judgment dated 26th April 2023, which states:
    “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 paragraph 66(i) of its judgment dated 26th April 2023, which states:
    “The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities;”

  • The Court also referred to the Notification dated 15th October, 2020 regarding the ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary which states:
    “All new and existing mining (minor and major minerals), stone quarrying and crushing units shall be prohibited with immediate effect except for meeting the domestic needs of bona fide local residents including digging of earth for construction or repair of houses within Eco Sensitive Zone;”

  • The Court also referred to the Notification dated 15th October, 2020 regarding the ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary which states:
    “The mining operations shall be carried our in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated the 4th August, 2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated the 21st April, 2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P(C) No. 435 of 2012.”

The Court emphasized that all activities prohibited under the 2011 guidelines and the specific ESZ notifications must be strictly followed.

See also  Supreme Court Directs States to Complete Migrant Worker Transportation Within 15 Days: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).6/2020 (09 June 2020)

Arguments

The applicant argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26th April 2023 only banned mining within one kilometer of a protected area but did not prohibit mining in ESZs beyond this distance. They contended that their proposed mining site, being more than 2.26 kilometers from the sanctuary, should be allowed, especially since the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life (SCNBWL) had granted permission.

The Union of India and the Amicus Curiae countered that the applicant had misinterpreted the Court’s directions. They argued that the ban on mining applied to all ESZs, irrespective of the distance from the protected area, and that the one-kilometer rule was only a minimum distance for areas where the ESZ was less than one kilometer.

Submission Applicant’s Argument Union of India & Amicus Curiae’s Argument
Distance from Protected Area Mining is permissible beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area, as per the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 26th April 2023. The one-kilometer rule is a minimum distance; mining is prohibited within the entire ESZ, regardless of its distance from the Protected Area.
Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) The judgment does not prohibit mining in ESZ if it is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area. Mining is prohibited in the ESZ as per the 2011 guidelines and specific ESZ notifications.
Standing Committee Permission The SCNBWL has granted permission for mining. The SCNBWL permission cannot override the prohibition under the 2011 guidelines and specific ESZ notifications.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was:

  • Whether mining activities are permissible in an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) if the area is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of a Protected Area.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether mining activities are permissible in an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) if the area is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of a Protected Area. No, mining is not permissible. Mining is a prohibited activity in ESZs, as per the 2011 guidelines and specific ESZ notifications, irrespective of the distance from the protected area.

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was used Legal Point
Judgment dated 26th April 2023 in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 Supreme Court of India Clarified and reaffirmed Prohibition of mining within one kilometer of protected areas.
Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 MoEF Followed Prohibited activities in ESZs, including commercial mining.
Notification dated 15th October 2020 regarding the ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary MoEF Followed Prohibition of all new and existing mining activities within the ESZ.
Order dated 04th August 2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 13 SCC 740 Supreme Court of India Referred to Mining operations to be carried out in accordance with the order of the Court.
Order dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590 Supreme Court of India Referred to Mining operations to be carried out in accordance with the order of the Court.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Prosecution Despite Ex-Post Facto Consent in Environmental Law Case: M/s Sweta Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board (2023) INSC 999 (10 November 2023)

Judgment

Submission How it was treated by the Court
Mining is permissible beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area. Rejected. The Court clarified that the one-kilometer rule is a minimum distance and mining is prohibited within the entire ESZ.
The judgment does not prohibit mining in ESZ if it is beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area. Rejected. The Court clarified that mining is prohibited in the ESZ as per the 2011 guidelines and specific ESZ notifications.
The SCNBWL has granted permission for mining. Rejected. The Court clarified that the SCNBWL permission cannot override the prohibition under the 2011 guidelines and specific ESZ notifications.

The Court used the following authorities in its reasoning:

  • The Court clarified that its judgment dated 26th April 2023, which prohibited mining within one kilometer of a protected area, was intended to apply pan-India. The Court stated that the one-kilometer rule was a minimum distance, and that mining is prohibited in the entire ESZ, irrespective of the distance from the protected area.
  • The Court also relied on the Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and the specific ESZ notifications, which prohibit commercial mining within ESZs. The Court emphasized that these guidelines and notifications must be strictly followed.
  • The Court stated that paragraph 4 of the Notification dated 15th October 2020 would now become redundant in view of the judgment dated 26th April 2023.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the environment and adhere to established guidelines. The Court emphasized that the prohibition of mining activities in ESZs is crucial for preserving the ecological balance and preventing environmental damage. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

  • The Court aimed to clarify its previous judgment to prevent any misinterpretation that might lead to environmental damage.
  • The Court emphasized the importance of following the 2011 guidelines and specific ESZ notifications, which prohibit mining in ESZs.
  • The Court aimed to protect National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries from becoming “death traps” due to mining activities.
Sentiment Percentage
Environmental Protection 40%
Adherence to Guidelines 30%
Clarity of Previous Judgments 20%
Protection of Wildlife Sanctuaries 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 20%
Law 80%
Issue: Is mining permissible in ESZ beyond 1km from Protected Area?
↓
Applicant’s Argument: Mining is permissible beyond 1km as per previous judgment.
↓
Court’s Analysis: 2011 guidelines and ESZ notifications prohibit mining in ESZ.
↓
Court’s Decision: Mining is not permissible in ESZ, irrespective of distance from Protected Area.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

  • The Court clarified that its earlier judgment was not to be interpreted as allowing mining in ESZs beyond one kilometer from the protected area.
  • The Court emphasized that the guidelines and notifications prohibiting mining in ESZs must be strictly followed.
  • The Court noted that the prohibition of one kilometer from the boundary of Protected Area is only with regard to the cases where the boundary of ESZ is less than one kilometer from the boundary of the sanctuary.

The Court stated:

“As such, any activity, which is prohibited by both the guidelines as well as the ESZ notification shall strictly be prohibited. 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.”

“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 prohibition of one kilometer from the boundary of Protected Area is only with regard to the cases where the boundary of ESZ is less than one kilometer from the boundary of the sanctuary. Only in such cases, the ban on mining will travel beyond the ESZ area and cover an area upto a distance of one kilometer.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

See also  Supreme Court Settles Family Property Dispute Through Mediation: Ravinder Kaur vs. Gagandeep Singh (2018)

Key Takeaways

  • Mining activities are strictly 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. In such cases, the ban on mining extends up to one kilometer from the protected area.
  • The guidelines and notifications prohibiting mining in ESZs must be strictly followed by all authorities.

Directions

The Court did not issue any specific directions, but reaffirmed that the guidelines and notifications prohibiting mining in ESZs must be strictly followed.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that mining is prohibited in ESZs, irrespective of the distance from the protected area. This clarification reinforces the importance of environmental protection and adherence to established guidelines. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the prohibition of mining in ESZs is absolute, and the one-kilometer rule is only a minimum distance applicable when the ESZ is less than one kilometer.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s clarification in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India reinforces the prohibition of mining activities within Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), irrespective of their distance from the boundary of a protected area. The Court emphasized that the one-kilometer rule is a minimum distance applicable only when the ESZ is less than one kilometer from the protected area. This judgment underscores the importance of environmental protection and strict adherence to established guidelines and notifications.

Category: Environmental Law, Mining Law, Wildlife Protection

Category: Environmental Law child category: Eco-Sensitive Zones

Category: Environmental Law child category: Mining Restrictions

Category: Environmental Law child category: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India

Category: Mining Law child category: Mining in Eco-Sensitive Zones

Category: Wildlife Protection child category: Wildlife Sanctuaries

Category: Wildlife Protection child category: National Parks

Category: Environmental Law child category: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Category: Wildlife Protection child category: Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

FAQ

Q: Can mining be carried out in an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)?
A: No, mining is generally prohibited in ESZs, irrespective of the distance from the boundary of a protected area.

Q: What is the significance of the one-kilometer rule?
A: The one-kilometer rule applies only when the ESZ boundary is less than one kilometer from the protected area. In such cases, the ban on mining extends up to one kilometer from the protected area.

Q: What guidelines should be followed regarding mining in ESZs?
A: The guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) on 9th February 2011 and the specific ESZ notifications must be strictly followed.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s clarification about?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that its previous judgment did not allow mining in ESZs beyond one kilometer from a protected area. The prohibition of mining is absolute in ESZs.

Q: What is the main objective of these restrictions?
A: The main objective is to protect the environment and prevent ecological damage by prohibiting mining activities in sensitive zones.

Source: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India