Landmark Supreme Court verdict on sand mining and environmental clearance

By Raj Kumar Sinha* 

The Supreme Court has announced that sand mining projects cannot be granted environmental clearance if a study assessing the river's annual natural recharge capacity is not available. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar stated that recharge data, along with the District Survey Report, is a mandatory prerequisite for environmental clearance.

The court found that the District Survey Reports prepared in the case were "fundamentally flawed" because they lacked recharge data. Based on this, the court deemed them legally unacceptable, dismissed the appeals, and upheld the National Green Tribunal's decision to cancel the environmental clearances granted for sand mining in three blocks in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

The court stated, "Just as assessing the growth rate of trees is essential in forest conservation to ensure that cutting does not exceed growth, a recharge study enables us to decide whether sand mining can be done without disrupting the river's natural balance. Therefore, it is essential to consider a District Survey Report valid and acceptable only when it includes a proper recharge study."

Explaining the necessity of a recharge study in the current context, the court said, "Construction activities are rapidly increasing, and the demand for construction sand is extremely high. It is said that the world could be deprived of this resource by 2050. Construction sand is found in aquatic environments, such as rivers, and is one of the ecosystem's supply services. Even under controlled conditions, mining sand from the riverbed and banks impacts the environment. Its main physical effects are the widening and lowering of the riverbed. The biggest biological effect is a decrease in biodiversity, which extends from aquatic and coastal flora and fauna to the entire floodplain. Due to its easy availability, river sand and gravel have been widely used in construction projects. However, depending on the mining method and the river's shape and hydrodynamics, it can cause erosion or other negative effects on the riverbed and banks. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct appropriate studies, especially recharge studies, to find sustainable and economical methods of river mining." The court clarified that "the current legal framework mandates that the recharge report be prepared scientifically and become part of the District Survey Report. In this light, any District Survey Report that does not include a proper recharge study is unacceptable."

Justice Narasimha said, "In our view, the Jammu & Kashmir Environmental Appraisal Committee made a grave error when it proceeded with the process despite knowing that the District Survey Report was incomplete. It was not prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Forest and Environment's 2016 notification and the 2016 and 2020 sand mining guidelines and had incomplete recharge data."

The court stated, "It is unfortunate that the Jammu & Kashmir State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority compromised its regulatory integrity and granted environmental clearance based on a District Survey Report that lacked a recharge report. The compromise reached by allowing the project proponent with conditions like 'mining limited to a maximum depth of 1 meter, production of mineral at a bulk density of 2.0, and a maximum production limit of 34,800 metric tons' is unacceptable. Such an improper recommendation is an example of the regulatory failure of the Environmental Appraisal Committee and the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority."

This case pertained to appeals filed by the National Highways Authority and the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, challenging the Green Tribunal's order. The Green Tribunal had declared the environmental clearance illegal, stating that it was based on a District Survey Report that did not include recharge data.

With urbanization and increasing construction, the demand for sand is constantly rising. To meet this demand, sand mining is continuously increasing. This directly affects the ecosystem. The current rate of mining is disrupting the balance between humans and nature. In this blind race for human development, nature is paying the price.

Environmental experts believe that sand mining causes several types of damage to river ecosystems, including riverbed erosion, destruction of aquatic habitats, and a decrease in biodiversity. It alters the river's flow and sedimentation patterns, leading to increased flooding and erosion. It increases the river's turbidity, decreases oxygen levels, and can lower groundwater levels, causing a shortage of local drinking water. Sand mining disrupts the river's natural balance, threatening the lives of local organisms.

The Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, defines major and minor minerals. Since 1957, the situation has changed, and the use of sand has increased multifold. Given the widespread impact of sand mining on the environment, it should be included as a major, not minor, mineral, with provisions for strict environmental permits. In the current era, rivers have become a means for companies, corporations, and the government to make a profit. Sand mining is severely affecting the ecosystem of the Narmada River. The following measures should be taken to address this. A special monitoring team should be formed to keep an eye on illegal sand mining activities. Strict action should be taken against illegal miners, and their equipment should be confiscated. The search for and use of alternative sources of sand for construction should be encouraged.

This May, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notices to the state government, the mining department, and collectors of about seven districts for violating Section 6 of the 'PESA Act.' The matter is related to mining in areas notified under Section 6 of the PESA Act, 1996. The petition also made several allegations against Vanshika Construction Company, which had taken the contract for sand mining in the Mandla district. The court has directed all respondents to file their replies within four weeks.

Advocates Rameshwar P. Singh and Vinayak Prasad Sah, on behalf of the petitioner, argued in court that the government gave Vanshika Construction a three-year contract to extract sand from 26 mines in the notified scheduled area of Mandla district against the rules. Mines in the Mandla, Dindori, Dhar, Jhabua, Shahdol, and Barwani districts have been declared notified areas under the 'PESA Act' by the President. In these areas, permission and a No-Objection Certificate from the respective Gram Panchayats are required for any kind of mining, but Vanshika Construction is continuously excavating sand using heavy machinery. The petition alleges that Vanshika Construction is also violating the permit of 12 to 15 tons per dumper and transporting sand in large dumpers of up to 50 tons.

---

*Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Union