Supreme Court directs implementation of Wildlife Management Plan in Odisha Mining Case (2 March 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 171

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can mining activities be allowed near a wildlife sanctuary without proper environmental safeguards? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving stone quarries near the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary in Odisha. The court’s decision emphasizes the need for strict adherence to environmental regulations and the protection of wildlife corridors. This judgment clarifies the obligations of state governments in safeguarding eco-sensitive zones and wildlife habitats.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a petition filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) concerning stone quarry leases granted near the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary in Odisha. The NGT, responding to concerns about the impact of these quarries on the wildlife sanctuary and its eco-sensitive zone, ordered a report from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of Forest Force (PCCF (HoFF)).

The PCCF (HoFF) report highlighted that the quarries were located near a traditional elephant corridor and posed a threat to the habitat. Based on this report, the NGT directed the State Government to take steps to include the entire corridor within the eco-sensitive zone and prohibit any activity within it. This led to the stoppage of operations of stone quarries in the Sarisua Hills by the Tehsildar Khaira. The appellants, who were the leaseholders of these stone quarries, challenged this order.

The NGT eventually directed that no mining activity should be permitted within or near the Similipal-Hadagarh-Kuldiha-Similipal elephant corridor. The Tribunal also ordered the completion of the process under Section 36 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to declare the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve. The Appellants, who were the lease holders, appealed against this decision.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’). Specifically, Section 3 of the Act, read with Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, empowers the government to declare areas as eco-sensitive zones.

Section 36 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, deals with the declaration of a conservation reserve. The NGT had initially ordered the completion of the process under this section. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the relevant provision for declaring an elephant corridor as a conservation reserve is Section 36A of the Act.

Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, mandates the State Government to declare areas adjoining National Parks and Sanctuaries, and areas that link protected areas, as conservation reserves to protect landscapes, seascapes, flora, fauna, and their habitats.

The notification dated 09.08.2017 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Government of India, declared the area around Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary as an eco-sensitive zone, which included the corridor linking Kuldiha and Hadgarh Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants contended that their stone quarries are not within the eco-sensitive zone, and are situated on the other side of the hillock. Therefore, the order to stop their operations was unjustified.

• They argued that the NGT did not hear them before passing the order, violating the principles of natural justice.

State of Odisha’s Arguments:

• The State of Odisha argued that the Standing Committee of the NBWL had approved the quarrying operations in its 40th meeting.

• They submitted that the quarries of the Appellants were outside the eco-sensitive zone and that there was constant monitoring to prevent any ingress into the eco-sensitive zone.

• The State agreed that quarrying operations should be permitted around the eco-sensitive zone, subject to the implementation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan.

• They stated that the process for declaring the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve was under active consideration.

Respondent No. 8’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 8 argued that the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan must be implemented before the commencement of mining operations.

• They contended that several measures suggested in the plan for mitigating the impact of quarrying had not been implemented.

• They argued that the Standing Committee of NBWL had approved the quarrying operations subject to the implementation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan.

• They relied on Section 36A of the Act, stating that the State Government must declare areas adjoining National Parks and Sanctuaries as conservation reserves.

Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF) Arguments:

• The MoEF clarified that the relevant provision for declaring an elephant corridor as a conservation reserve is Section 36A of the Act, not Section 36 as mentioned in the NGT order.

• The MoEF stated that they had no objection to the operation of stone quarries outside the eco-sensitive zone, provided that Section 36A requirements and the conditions in the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan are complied with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether mining activity in the vicinity of the Similipal-Hadgarh-Kuldiha-Similipal Elephant Corridor should be stopped.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on Section 3 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972* and Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986* to highlight the government’s power to declare eco-sensitive zones.

✓ The Court clarified that Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972*, not Section 36, is the relevant provision for declaring an elephant corridor as a conservation reserve.

✓ The Court cited Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animals & Ors. [(2020) 10 SCC 589]* and Goa Foundation v. Union of India [(2014) 6 SCC 590]* to emphasize the importance of preserving elephant corridors and wildlife sanctuaries.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the elephant corridor and ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The Court emphasized the importance of implementing the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and completing the process of declaring the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve as per Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Court prioritized environmental protection and adherence to legal procedures over the economic interests of the quarry leaseholders.

“Fact:Law” Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal requirements and environmental protection principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the location of the quarries, were secondary to the legal obligations and the need to protect the wildlife corridor.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to ensure that environmental safeguards are in place before mining activities are allowed to proceed. The Court emphasized that the implementation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and the declaration of the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve are essential prerequisites for allowing any mining operations in the area.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would allow mining activities to continue without these safeguards. The decision was driven by the need to uphold the principles of environmental protection and the legal requirements of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and complete the process of declaring the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve as per Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The need to protect the traditional elephant corridor.

• The requirement to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan.

• The legal obligation to declare the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Court stated:

“The dispute can be resolved by giving a direction to the State Government to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and complete the process of declaration of the traditional elephant corridor as conservation reserve as provided in Section 36A of the Act.”

“Therefore, the State of Odisha is directed to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan as suggested by the Standing Committee of NBWL before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone.”

“The State is also directed to complete the process of declaration of the traditional elephant corridor as conservation reserve as per Section 36A of the Act expeditiously. The mining operations of 97 quarries shall be permitted only thereafter.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case, as the judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges who were in agreement.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legal provisions and the need to protect the environment. The Court applied the legal provisions to the facts of the case, emphasizing that the implementation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and the declaration of the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve were mandatory requirements.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving mining activities near eco-sensitive zones. It sets a precedent that environmental safeguards must be in place before any such activities are permitted. The judgment also highlights the importance of the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and the need for strict compliance with Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced by the Court. The Court’s decision was based on the existing legal framework and the need to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.

Key Takeaways

• Mining operations near eco-sensitive zones require prior implementation of a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan.

• The declaration of traditional elephant corridors as conservation reserves under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is mandatory.

• State governments must ensure strict compliance with environmental regulations before permitting any mining activity.

• The Supreme Court has prioritized environmental protection and adherence to legal procedures over economic interests in this case.

The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving mining activities near eco-sensitive zones. It sets a precedent that environmental safeguards must be in place before any such activities are permitted, and that the implementation of Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plans and the declaration of conservation reserves are mandatory requirements. This will likely lead to increased scrutiny of mining proposals near wildlife habitats and a greater emphasis on environmental protection.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to:

• Implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan as suggested by the Standing Committee of NBWL before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone.

• Complete the process of declaring the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve as per Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, expeditiously.

• Permit mining operations of the 97 quarries only after the implementation of the plan and declaration of the reserve.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mining activities near eco-sensitive zones cannot be permitted without the prior implementation of a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and the declaration of the area as a conservation reserve under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The judgment clarifies that the relevant provision for declaring an elephant corridor as a conservation reserve is Section 36A, not Section 36, of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. This is a significant clarification as the NGT had initially directed the process under Section 36.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of environmental protection and adherence to legal procedures over economic interests, reinforcing the need for strict compliance with environmental regulations before permitting any mining activity near eco-sensitive zones.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors. vs. State of Odisha & Ors. directs the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and complete the process of declaring the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone. This decision underscores the importance of environmental protection and the need for strict compliance with legal procedures in such cases. The judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving mining activities near eco-sensitive zones, emphasizing the mandatory nature of environmental safeguards.