The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that mining “shall not be permissible” within 1 kilometre (km) of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, underscoring that such areas must remain insulated from industrial activities. 

Revising its April 2023 ruling, by which the apex court had placed similar curbs on mining in Goa, a two-judge Bench — of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandra — said that the same principle must be applied uniformly across the country.

 “Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, we are of the considered view that it has been the consistent view of this court that mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of Protected Areas will be hazardous for wildlife. Though in the case of the Goa Foundation the said directions were issued in respect of the state of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on a pan-Indian basis,” the Bench said. “We….direct that mining within National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries and within 1 km from the boundary of such National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries shall not be permissible,” the Bench said. 

The court was hearing applications concerning the status of the Saranda region, in Jharkhand, for which it instructed the state to proceed with issuing the sanctuary notification and emphasised that communities living in the forests must retain all protections guaranteed to them under the Forest Rights Act.

Public infrastructure such as schools, health centres and rail links will continue to operate, though extraction-related activities are debarred, the court said.

“We further direct the state of Jharkhand to give wide publicity to the fact that by this judgment, neither the individual rights nor the community rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers in the said area would be adversely affected,” the court said.

Experts say the Supreme Court’s directions extend to existing or old mines located within 1 km of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

 “The judgment makes it clear that even operational or proposed mining within ecologically sensitive areas must comply with statutory protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Consequently, old mining operations falling within this prohibited buffer zone will either have to cease operations or undergo a stringent environmental review,” said Ashutosh K Srivastava, partner, SKV Law Offices.

Gathi Prakash, partner at law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, said this would affect both existing and future mining operations.

“The Saranda Forest Division has 26 per cent of India’s iron ore reserves. The economic impact of this decision will be felt most by steel plants that are dependent on mining in this area. The state also argued that this decision would affect employment in the area and would have an impact on achieving production levels envisioned in the National Steel Policy, 2017,” she said.

The court also mandated creating a wildlife sanctuary covering 120 compartments in this area, thereby granting statutory protection to one of the most pristine sal forests in the world.

“The region is rich in biodiversity and wildlife, and includes within its confines the critically endangered and endemic sal forest tortoise, four-horned antelope, Asian palm civet, wild elephants, leopards, sambar and chital deer, bison, barking deer, and numerous species of birds and reptiles," Gathi said. 

In a region that was facing substantial environmental pressure from mining, this decision prioritises wildlife conservation and environment protection while attempting to balance development needs and tribal rights, Prakash said.

The matter is related to the notification of areas under the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and the Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve as a conservation reserve in Jharkhand.

Earlier the Bench had asked the Jharkhand government to take a decision to declare the ecologically rich Saranda region as a reserve forest.

The matter pertained to a long-pending proposal to notify the Saranda and Sasangdaburu forest areas in West Singhbhum district as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve, respectively. The state government, in its affidavit, had earlier said it proposed to notify 57,519.41 hectares as against the original proposal of 31,468.25 hectares, as a wildlife sanctuary. 

In Thursday’s judgment, the court recorded its displeasure with the state’s “topsy-turvy approach” after it successively proposed three different extents for the sanctuary: First 57,519 hectares, then reverting to 31,468 hectares, and eventually proposing a reduced 24,941 hectares.

The Bench said it was “not unjustified in gathering an impression that the state was taking the court for a ride”, noting that the government had changed its stand “on every date”.